Questions from HelgeS, part 3
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
HelgeS ; I am kinda new here on posting, and have read very little of what you posted, but it seems to me you are in some kind of despair about your stiuation. ( Making the assumption you live in Germany or Europe. ) You appear to need some guidence, by the assumptions you have made about We, The People, here in the US. If this is so just ask for some help. You don`t have to beat around the bush. Just ask, how can you help change my sorry Socialist life and live like you do in your fine Republic. I`m sure that some here could tell you how to start.
Now on to your comments on our Education system.
Your Quote posted July 28,00 12:34pm at the last sentence, on education.
< I am horrified by the knowledge that everyday in the US very intelligent young people are stopped from studying because they cannot afford the thousands of dollars tuition.>
Well! HelgeS. The very intelligent young people are not stopped from study. We here in the Republic of the United States of America, ( Not a Democracy, as many may think it is. It is not, it is a Republic.) have what is called Grants, offered by many corporations,endowments etc. Any intelligent graduate from High School can apply for such grants. Or get a student loan from our governmant, that they have to pay back. No freebe. If you want something work for it.
If someone wants an education it is there for them, they have to work for it.
The work to get their is what made this country the Greatest the world has ever seen. And you don`t have to have a formal education to be great in this country, you just have to be free from Socialist oppression and government control.
------------------
" Stupidity " Strange as it may seem, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.
( Stephen Vizinczey, 1933 )
Now on to your comments on our Education system.
Your Quote posted July 28,00 12:34pm at the last sentence, on education.
< I am horrified by the knowledge that everyday in the US very intelligent young people are stopped from studying because they cannot afford the thousands of dollars tuition.>
Well! HelgeS. The very intelligent young people are not stopped from study. We here in the Republic of the United States of America, ( Not a Democracy, as many may think it is. It is not, it is a Republic.) have what is called Grants, offered by many corporations,endowments etc. Any intelligent graduate from High School can apply for such grants. Or get a student loan from our governmant, that they have to pay back. No freebe. If you want something work for it.
If someone wants an education it is there for them, they have to work for it.
The work to get their is what made this country the Greatest the world has ever seen. And you don`t have to have a formal education to be great in this country, you just have to be free from Socialist oppression and government control.
------------------
" Stupidity " Strange as it may seem, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.
( Stephen Vizinczey, 1933 )
Hmmm...
thanks for the discussion Dennis, I appreciated the comments (gun related or not). You are right, there is a big cultural difference between europe and north america.
The income thing:
I can't access your link. Analysing financial data for this question is a bit challenging though (that's why I went through the pain of finding the median statistics. The problem is that we were talking about the income of the middle class, not the total income of the country. There is no doubt that the USA is per capita richer than say Germany. The issue was though, to check the status of the middle class. If you just take the overall per capita income then the enormous winnings of the upper class distort the picture completely (the vastly lower winnings of the lower class do so too). So you need to find the income class of the "middle class". You do that (that's why I provided the two extensive census analysis papers) by checking the income distribution, then take the largest group of those, make a gausian curve around it (or any other curve, essentially you just want to define the "middle income"). Then take the resulting group as the "middle class" and from that define their GDP. Here is an example:
10% of the people earn 1000 dollar
10% of the people earn 100 dollar
20% of the people earn 10 dollar
30% of the people earn 5 dollar
20% of the people earn 1 dollar
10% of the people earn nothing.
Now, the normal GDP per capita would just take the average of all those. But that's not the GDP of the "middle class", it is grossly distorted by the very high income of the upper class and the very low income of the lower class. If you do the math on this little example you get (1000*10+100*10+10*20+5*30+1*20+0)/100=113.7$ GDP per capita
So what you do is to find the biggest group (30% of the people who earn 5 dollar), then make a standard deviation (say from a gaussian curve) around it, so that's the middle class. In this case for simplicity lets take the two groups of 20% each (in reality you need to actually equat the standard deviation). Now, the middle class GDP average per capita is (20*10+30*5+20*1)/70=~5$
Do you see the enormous difference?
Political orientation:
I am not a communist, socialist, etc. I have stupid the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others, but I am not a big fan of their concepts. I would describe my position as social-democratic. Before I get any more insults in that direction, may I advise all the people who haven't done so yet to read at LEAST the "communisitic manifest" by Marx to get the very basic ideas. Or stop talking about stuff they don't understand. Thanks.
And a few quickies:
>They [the europeans] see communism as a political system of oppression. We see the economic side of it too.<
Umm... Let me get that straight... We europeans (who were accused of being socialists, communists and whatnot in the last 100 posts continuously) see communism as a political system of oppression, while YOU, who you are lamenting with every second word about my being such a communist, seeking for domination of the government, don't?
Interesting theory...
>So when we call them communist (because of economic ideas) they get upset (because they think Stalin and oppression).<
Do you know what communism is? Please explain the theory of communism as proposed by Karl Marx to us. I would like a focus on the "economical ideas", thanks. I am waiting.
>It seems the more "education" people get, the more common sense they seem to lose and the more elitist they seem to get.<
Or is it just that their mind becomes more open?
>And I don't want to ban all the people who wander off topic; I just want to ban YOU.<
Aha... and why if I may ask? Because I have a different opinion? You are spitting on the work of your ancestors there my friend...
>In previous threads, you have proven that: 1) you are not who you say you are<
Have I proven that? Hmm... Let me think... The only instant I recall is that some clown accused me of not being a german because my english is too good. And the only think I proved in that context is that I AM german (simply by providing my ID#). I can't recall proving anything else. Would you mind citing something to give some kind of foundation to this insult? I am waiting...
>2) your knowledge base isn't nearly as complete as you would have us believe<
So far I have managed to cite about as many links, archives, articles, etc as the combined power of... what did you say?... 6000TFLer. I am pleased with that achievement.
>3) you consistently REFUSE to answer specific questions/points made by others which are AT THE HEART of the "real" issue<
I try to answer as much as I can. Please put down as many points as you deem necessary (point I didn't answer to so far) and I will gladly answer. The moment I post I get 20 replies. Most of those are insults. How do you expect me to read them all, answer them all and not overlook issues? Be realistic and fair here. I am 1 against 100 here.
>4) you are insufferably arrogant.<
That might be, or might not be. I can hardly make statements regarding my personal behavior.
>>yes, I prefer, "is given by" over "take away" though.
"Is given by".... TRY to say NO. See what happens.<<
The same that happens when you refuse to obey any other law in any other country: You leave the country or you are punished. If you refuse the give to the church (church taxation) then you are also leaving the church. That's the same everywhere.
>Tell me what happens when you tell the government that you will not be paying your taxes because you don't need the "benifits" that they offer.
One question shouldn't be too hard to answer, should it.<
Nope, it isn't hard to answer because you know the answer already. It is not possible to NOT benefit from the governmential support. IF you would not pay taxes then in return you would not be allowed to use ANY of the infrastructure (roads, education, health, social, etc) nor would anybody directly related to you. That's obviously not possible.
But the underlying misunderstanding you have there is that the tax does not actually "go away". I have said this before: Cutting the tax rate does not simply translate into more income. The whole economic system will just adapt to it and effective income stays pretty much the same. If that would not be the case then we would have enormous income gaps in the western world. Countries like germany with a very high tax rate would be inhabited by people who earn vastly less then say US people. We have about a 20% tax gap between the US and germany. Does that mean that the US people earn 20% more money? NOPE, we more or less earn the same.
the only way to actually hand out more money to the worker is by not only cutting the tax but also privatizing the benefit (like the health system). Then you can hand out more money, but, on average the REAL income will still be the same since the "no health system person" now earns more money, but has to spend a part of it (the part that it earns more) to get a private health system. In average it will all be the same, the only difference is that now "lucky" people (those who don't get sick) have a bit more overall and unlucky people have a bit less.
>>What do you think gives you the privilege to take away anything that you think a person does not strictly "need" (according to you)?<<
Expertise. That's the one word. If I want to build a car and a car mechanic comes to me and tells me that this car is not going to be save, it will likely blow up and kill everybody on the road, then I listen to the man and don't buid the car. Why? Because he has the expertise and I don't (and I am a physicist and engineer, if anything then my profession comes CLOSE to the car mechanics expertise, yet I would still listen to him). This is the same everywhere in life if you are wise. There is just one key difference:
If I do something for myself and it is something that will and can only affect myself then I am still supposed to listen to the fellow who has the expertise, but I am free to endanger myself and ignore his advice.
On the other hand, everything I do that has the potential of harming or negatively affecting other is not only subject to advice from the person who has the expertise but requires that persons permission. Why? Because that is my responsibility in a society.
And we do that, even in the US. We do it all the time. The whole reason why we have laws is just that.
>>My knowledge of rifles<<
I am well aware of the differences between handguns and rifles (try hitting a moving target further than 10 meters away with a german P1 military pistol... I tell you, you have never seen a crappier device...).
I was not refering to the EFFICIENCY of a weapon in self defence. The most efficient weapon would be a group of bodyguards with automatic weapons.
I was talking about the most FEASIBLE form of self defence. And there pistols are the key thing. I don't think anybody carries a shotgun or some such to the grocery store. I am willing to agree that you have a point with the "shotguns are good for home defence". But they are limited to "static" protection (ie, when somebody criminal happens to come to the place where you and your gun is as well).
cheers
Helge
PS: To the people who I have asked to provide some kind of proof, statement or declaration. I would appreciate if you would first engage in this discussion again after you provided the desired thing. I can of course not force you to do so, but be assured, the moment you open your mouth (or start typing in this case) without providing the very simple things I asked for (ie, backup of your claims in most cases) you will loose you credibility completely and conceed that you have been wrong on the issue AND do not have the guts to apolize formally. It will be a pleasure to remind you of it afterwards. (Puh... I hope that is finally a way to reduce the number of insults in here...)
thanks for the discussion Dennis, I appreciated the comments (gun related or not). You are right, there is a big cultural difference between europe and north america.
The income thing:
I can't access your link. Analysing financial data for this question is a bit challenging though (that's why I went through the pain of finding the median statistics. The problem is that we were talking about the income of the middle class, not the total income of the country. There is no doubt that the USA is per capita richer than say Germany. The issue was though, to check the status of the middle class. If you just take the overall per capita income then the enormous winnings of the upper class distort the picture completely (the vastly lower winnings of the lower class do so too). So you need to find the income class of the "middle class". You do that (that's why I provided the two extensive census analysis papers) by checking the income distribution, then take the largest group of those, make a gausian curve around it (or any other curve, essentially you just want to define the "middle income"). Then take the resulting group as the "middle class" and from that define their GDP. Here is an example:
10% of the people earn 1000 dollar
10% of the people earn 100 dollar
20% of the people earn 10 dollar
30% of the people earn 5 dollar
20% of the people earn 1 dollar
10% of the people earn nothing.
Now, the normal GDP per capita would just take the average of all those. But that's not the GDP of the "middle class", it is grossly distorted by the very high income of the upper class and the very low income of the lower class. If you do the math on this little example you get (1000*10+100*10+10*20+5*30+1*20+0)/100=113.7$ GDP per capita
So what you do is to find the biggest group (30% of the people who earn 5 dollar), then make a standard deviation (say from a gaussian curve) around it, so that's the middle class. In this case for simplicity lets take the two groups of 20% each (in reality you need to actually equat the standard deviation). Now, the middle class GDP average per capita is (20*10+30*5+20*1)/70=~5$
Do you see the enormous difference?
Political orientation:
I am not a communist, socialist, etc. I have stupid the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others, but I am not a big fan of their concepts. I would describe my position as social-democratic. Before I get any more insults in that direction, may I advise all the people who haven't done so yet to read at LEAST the "communisitic manifest" by Marx to get the very basic ideas. Or stop talking about stuff they don't understand. Thanks.
And a few quickies:
>They [the europeans] see communism as a political system of oppression. We see the economic side of it too.<
Umm... Let me get that straight... We europeans (who were accused of being socialists, communists and whatnot in the last 100 posts continuously) see communism as a political system of oppression, while YOU, who you are lamenting with every second word about my being such a communist, seeking for domination of the government, don't?
Interesting theory...
>So when we call them communist (because of economic ideas) they get upset (because they think Stalin and oppression).<
Do you know what communism is? Please explain the theory of communism as proposed by Karl Marx to us. I would like a focus on the "economical ideas", thanks. I am waiting.
>It seems the more "education" people get, the more common sense they seem to lose and the more elitist they seem to get.<
Or is it just that their mind becomes more open?
>And I don't want to ban all the people who wander off topic; I just want to ban YOU.<
Aha... and why if I may ask? Because I have a different opinion? You are spitting on the work of your ancestors there my friend...
>In previous threads, you have proven that: 1) you are not who you say you are<
Have I proven that? Hmm... Let me think... The only instant I recall is that some clown accused me of not being a german because my english is too good. And the only think I proved in that context is that I AM german (simply by providing my ID#). I can't recall proving anything else. Would you mind citing something to give some kind of foundation to this insult? I am waiting...
>2) your knowledge base isn't nearly as complete as you would have us believe<
So far I have managed to cite about as many links, archives, articles, etc as the combined power of... what did you say?... 6000TFLer. I am pleased with that achievement.
>3) you consistently REFUSE to answer specific questions/points made by others which are AT THE HEART of the "real" issue<
I try to answer as much as I can. Please put down as many points as you deem necessary (point I didn't answer to so far) and I will gladly answer. The moment I post I get 20 replies. Most of those are insults. How do you expect me to read them all, answer them all and not overlook issues? Be realistic and fair here. I am 1 against 100 here.
>4) you are insufferably arrogant.<
That might be, or might not be. I can hardly make statements regarding my personal behavior.
>>yes, I prefer, "is given by" over "take away" though.
"Is given by".... TRY to say NO. See what happens.<<
The same that happens when you refuse to obey any other law in any other country: You leave the country or you are punished. If you refuse the give to the church (church taxation) then you are also leaving the church. That's the same everywhere.
>Tell me what happens when you tell the government that you will not be paying your taxes because you don't need the "benifits" that they offer.
One question shouldn't be too hard to answer, should it.<
Nope, it isn't hard to answer because you know the answer already. It is not possible to NOT benefit from the governmential support. IF you would not pay taxes then in return you would not be allowed to use ANY of the infrastructure (roads, education, health, social, etc) nor would anybody directly related to you. That's obviously not possible.
But the underlying misunderstanding you have there is that the tax does not actually "go away". I have said this before: Cutting the tax rate does not simply translate into more income. The whole economic system will just adapt to it and effective income stays pretty much the same. If that would not be the case then we would have enormous income gaps in the western world. Countries like germany with a very high tax rate would be inhabited by people who earn vastly less then say US people. We have about a 20% tax gap between the US and germany. Does that mean that the US people earn 20% more money? NOPE, we more or less earn the same.
the only way to actually hand out more money to the worker is by not only cutting the tax but also privatizing the benefit (like the health system). Then you can hand out more money, but, on average the REAL income will still be the same since the "no health system person" now earns more money, but has to spend a part of it (the part that it earns more) to get a private health system. In average it will all be the same, the only difference is that now "lucky" people (those who don't get sick) have a bit more overall and unlucky people have a bit less.
>>What do you think gives you the privilege to take away anything that you think a person does not strictly "need" (according to you)?<<
Expertise. That's the one word. If I want to build a car and a car mechanic comes to me and tells me that this car is not going to be save, it will likely blow up and kill everybody on the road, then I listen to the man and don't buid the car. Why? Because he has the expertise and I don't (and I am a physicist and engineer, if anything then my profession comes CLOSE to the car mechanics expertise, yet I would still listen to him). This is the same everywhere in life if you are wise. There is just one key difference:
If I do something for myself and it is something that will and can only affect myself then I am still supposed to listen to the fellow who has the expertise, but I am free to endanger myself and ignore his advice.
On the other hand, everything I do that has the potential of harming or negatively affecting other is not only subject to advice from the person who has the expertise but requires that persons permission. Why? Because that is my responsibility in a society.
And we do that, even in the US. We do it all the time. The whole reason why we have laws is just that.
>>My knowledge of rifles<<
I am well aware of the differences between handguns and rifles (try hitting a moving target further than 10 meters away with a german P1 military pistol... I tell you, you have never seen a crappier device...).
I was not refering to the EFFICIENCY of a weapon in self defence. The most efficient weapon would be a group of bodyguards with automatic weapons.
I was talking about the most FEASIBLE form of self defence. And there pistols are the key thing. I don't think anybody carries a shotgun or some such to the grocery store. I am willing to agree that you have a point with the "shotguns are good for home defence". But they are limited to "static" protection (ie, when somebody criminal happens to come to the place where you and your gun is as well).
cheers
Helge
PS: To the people who I have asked to provide some kind of proof, statement or declaration. I would appreciate if you would first engage in this discussion again after you provided the desired thing. I can of course not force you to do so, but be assured, the moment you open your mouth (or start typing in this case) without providing the very simple things I asked for (ie, backup of your claims in most cases) you will loose you credibility completely and conceed that you have been wrong on the issue AND do not have the guts to apolize formally. It will be a pleasure to remind you of it afterwards. (Puh... I hope that is finally a way to reduce the number of insults in here...)
Dennis Olson
New member
I firmly feel that this thread, now having nothing to do with anything even REMOTELY associated to the purpose of this forum, be closed.
I also feel that starting a "part 4" (5,6,7... etc) would be a mistake, if the topic continues to drift. Time to move on to other folks.
[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 29, 2000).]
I also feel that starting a "part 4" (5,6,7... etc) would be a mistake, if the topic continues to drift. Time to move on to other folks.
[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 29, 2000).]
I disagree, Dennis, as I disagree with avoiding socialists.
Without converting a lot of committed socialists, we're all done for in many ways.
The gun control issues end up at individual rights versus "good of the majority will of the collective" - the discussion IS relevant to gun control.
Battler.
Without converting a lot of committed socialists, we're all done for in many ways.
The gun control issues end up at individual rights versus "good of the majority will of the collective" - the discussion IS relevant to gun control.
Battler.
Dennis Olson
New member
Yes Battler, certain issues vis-a-vis socialists ARE very relevant to our struggle. HOWEVER, "our income is higher, our children better educated, our people more civilized" has NOTHING to do with our issues.
And Helge still runs away from answering the points put to him by others here. Kind of like on the MS board. Just empty rhetoric, with no real desire for an honest debate of the issues. We are far better served ignoring such persons.
YMMV
EDIT: Helge, I have read your posts of the preceeding week quietly, only making a small comment or two along the way. However, you have consistently dragged the debate into an US vs. YOU (our OUR gov't system vs. YOUR gov't system). I am not interested in the socialist GDR (or whatever it's called today). This is a gun enthusiast board. I'm quite tired your off-topic explorations.
Others on the board, as well as myself (in earlier threads) have caught you in multiple inconsistencies. I'll not waste time and effort at a futile off-topic discussion series with someone such as yourself.
[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 29, 2000).]
And Helge still runs away from answering the points put to him by others here. Kind of like on the MS board. Just empty rhetoric, with no real desire for an honest debate of the issues. We are far better served ignoring such persons.
YMMV
EDIT: Helge, I have read your posts of the preceeding week quietly, only making a small comment or two along the way. However, you have consistently dragged the debate into an US vs. YOU (our OUR gov't system vs. YOUR gov't system). I am not interested in the socialist GDR (or whatever it's called today). This is a gun enthusiast board. I'm quite tired your off-topic explorations.
Others on the board, as well as myself (in earlier threads) have caught you in multiple inconsistencies. I'll not waste time and effort at a futile off-topic discussion series with someone such as yourself.
[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 29, 2000).]
Being from Australia I understand him a bit - I used to be like that. I can no longer stand (most of) my fellow countrymen, and about half of Americans (although America has a significang portion of the population who think for themselves - god bless USA).
The remainder of my post is continuing the thread (sorry, Dennis) so if you're utterly sick of this please ignore.
For starters someone like HelgeS would not address my prior posts about the costs and barbarity of taxation - as the post said, it is something that people cannot think about.
The mindset in those places is positively sick - ironically, the individualism you espouse is seen as somewhere between vulgar and barbaric.
As far as wealth of the average individual, it is very low. You can't just compare GDP or even salaries - all the socialism makes stuff cost a bunch more. Appliances cost at least double. Then you have to drive around in a dinky little POS car - Geo Metro would qualify as almost midsize. Then you can live in your dinky little apartment - with your parents usually, until you're in your mid-20s and can afford to move away from home.
At this point a European socialist would talk about the "quality of life" that is more than mere possessions, and comes from not having to compete as much, think for yourself, or make your own decisions. That and the quality of life that comes from being able to associate with other socialists in the absence of individualist neanderthals.
Remember that socialist and individualist beliefs are not equivalent but opposite - as an individualist I don't care what they believe; but their doctrine involves banding together and using the government to threaten me and redistribute my property, and remove my means of self-defense.
If they are benevolent socialists who don't want to kill me, they will merely teach my children in public schools to be like them and wait for people like me to just die off.
Battler.
The remainder of my post is continuing the thread (sorry, Dennis) so if you're utterly sick of this please ignore.
For starters someone like HelgeS would not address my prior posts about the costs and barbarity of taxation - as the post said, it is something that people cannot think about.
The mindset in those places is positively sick - ironically, the individualism you espouse is seen as somewhere between vulgar and barbaric.
As far as wealth of the average individual, it is very low. You can't just compare GDP or even salaries - all the socialism makes stuff cost a bunch more. Appliances cost at least double. Then you have to drive around in a dinky little POS car - Geo Metro would qualify as almost midsize. Then you can live in your dinky little apartment - with your parents usually, until you're in your mid-20s and can afford to move away from home.
At this point a European socialist would talk about the "quality of life" that is more than mere possessions, and comes from not having to compete as much, think for yourself, or make your own decisions. That and the quality of life that comes from being able to associate with other socialists in the absence of individualist neanderthals.
Remember that socialist and individualist beliefs are not equivalent but opposite - as an individualist I don't care what they believe; but their doctrine involves banding together and using the government to threaten me and redistribute my property, and remove my means of self-defense.
If they are benevolent socialists who don't want to kill me, they will merely teach my children in public schools to be like them and wait for people like me to just die off.
Battler.
Helge, it's too bad that you could not access the URL Dennis provided. You would have seen that the analysis is almost done for you there. The figure Dennis quoted is the mean of the middle quintile of American household incomes for 1998 ($38,967/year). There is another page on the same website (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income98/in98dis.html) that gives you the actual median of U.S. household incomes for the same year, which turns out to be $38,885/year, which I think you can agree validates the first value as being close to as close to reality as statistics can be.
Now, as far as our educational system goes, I don't think anyone has come right out and said this to you, but a great number of us Americans consider a higher education to be a privilege, not a guaranteed right. As has been mentioned, there is a whole universe of financial assistance available. Our system works, and works quite well. I went to school with a lot of non-U.S. students who preferred a degree from my little west Texas university to a degree from the most prestigious university in their own country.
On the subject of law, let me quote you:
"On the other hand, everything I do that has the potential of harming or negatively affecting other is not only subject to advice from the person who has the expertise but requires that persons permission. Why? Because that is my responsibility in a society. And we do that, even in the US. We do it all the time. The whole reason why we have laws is just that." How far does society go in protecting us from each other? Almost every move I make has the potential of harming someone else! We law-abiding gun owners, and there are many of us (more than 6000, I assure you) are not willing to give up our means of self-defence, of treasured pastimes such as hunting and target shooting just because it will make some others feel safer. Note that I say "feel safer", because it would not make them safer. See other postings here about crime problems in the U.K. and Australia for proof of this.
I must confess, I did not understand your proposition that only handguns be allowed for personal use. I suppose it was just for the sake of something to debate and not being suggested as something that we should adopt.
As for the folks around here labelling you a socialist, well, once again, you'll find that many of us believe that the type of political and economic philosophies that you talk about in your posts are socialist in nature. I'm just taking you at face value: it quacks, waddles, has webbed feet and feathers, must be a duck, huh? Most of the people who post on this forum are either conservative or libertarian in political philosophy, and it is hard for us to swallow how taking away the economic fruits of our labor and distributing it around without our sayso is good for us.
Now, as far as our educational system goes, I don't think anyone has come right out and said this to you, but a great number of us Americans consider a higher education to be a privilege, not a guaranteed right. As has been mentioned, there is a whole universe of financial assistance available. Our system works, and works quite well. I went to school with a lot of non-U.S. students who preferred a degree from my little west Texas university to a degree from the most prestigious university in their own country.
On the subject of law, let me quote you:
"On the other hand, everything I do that has the potential of harming or negatively affecting other is not only subject to advice from the person who has the expertise but requires that persons permission. Why? Because that is my responsibility in a society. And we do that, even in the US. We do it all the time. The whole reason why we have laws is just that." How far does society go in protecting us from each other? Almost every move I make has the potential of harming someone else! We law-abiding gun owners, and there are many of us (more than 6000, I assure you) are not willing to give up our means of self-defence, of treasured pastimes such as hunting and target shooting just because it will make some others feel safer. Note that I say "feel safer", because it would not make them safer. See other postings here about crime problems in the U.K. and Australia for proof of this.
I must confess, I did not understand your proposition that only handguns be allowed for personal use. I suppose it was just for the sake of something to debate and not being suggested as something that we should adopt.
As for the folks around here labelling you a socialist, well, once again, you'll find that many of us believe that the type of political and economic philosophies that you talk about in your posts are socialist in nature. I'm just taking you at face value: it quacks, waddles, has webbed feet and feathers, must be a duck, huh? Most of the people who post on this forum are either conservative or libertarian in political philosophy, and it is hard for us to swallow how taking away the economic fruits of our labor and distributing it around without our sayso is good for us.
oberkommando
New member
Battler
"even people who are mostly capitalist, have SOMETHING that they want others to all have to pay for."
Yeah I want them to pay my ammo bills.
Dennis Your "France, isolationism to preserve all things French.”
I think you definition of the French is right on the money. But hey you gotta give them some leeway they've lost so many wars they need to hold onto everything french.
This income comparison is getting a little much I am sure we can find a country that is higher than the U.S and Germany combined. Maybe Monaco? But I aint gonna move there, I don't think they'd like me shooting trap over their yachts.
HelgeS I agree that WWI and Napoleon, were also strong influences to German thought. And the settlement that ended the Thirty Years War (the peace of Westphalia in 1648)
Did not help matter either. They made it very difficult for Germany to recover by depriving them access to the sea. After westpphalia, the mouth of every great German river was under foriegn control.The poles held the baltic coast, the Oder and surrounding coasts were under the Swede's. The Elbe was controlled by the Danes as was the mouth of the rhine, dutch. There had been a time when Germany was the land of the Hansa, the league of cities that sought their fortunes on the open sea; it had now become a landlocked nation, at the very moment when other European nations were winning colonial empires. The effect of this on Germanys's towns, already crucially weakened by the war, is not difficut to imagine.
The peacemakers of 1648 also imposed upon Germany a political settlement that confirmed and legitimized the atomization of Germany by recognizing over 300 German states as sovereign entities. This was the reason that the French successors of Richelieu, determined to humble the Habsburg power, regarded Westphalia as "one of the finest jewels in the French crown" and argued that any attempt to interfere with "German liberties", by which they meant the rights of petty states, would contitute a breach of international law. German disunity and powerlessness thus became part of the natural European order, acquiesced to by all Great Powers, including the larger German states.
There go the Fench again interfering with other powers, and they wonder why they are so disliked.
[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 28, 2000).]
"even people who are mostly capitalist, have SOMETHING that they want others to all have to pay for."
Yeah I want them to pay my ammo bills.
Dennis Your "France, isolationism to preserve all things French.”
I think you definition of the French is right on the money. But hey you gotta give them some leeway they've lost so many wars they need to hold onto everything french.
This income comparison is getting a little much I am sure we can find a country that is higher than the U.S and Germany combined. Maybe Monaco? But I aint gonna move there, I don't think they'd like me shooting trap over their yachts.
HelgeS I agree that WWI and Napoleon, were also strong influences to German thought. And the settlement that ended the Thirty Years War (the peace of Westphalia in 1648)
Did not help matter either. They made it very difficult for Germany to recover by depriving them access to the sea. After westpphalia, the mouth of every great German river was under foriegn control.The poles held the baltic coast, the Oder and surrounding coasts were under the Swede's. The Elbe was controlled by the Danes as was the mouth of the rhine, dutch. There had been a time when Germany was the land of the Hansa, the league of cities that sought their fortunes on the open sea; it had now become a landlocked nation, at the very moment when other European nations were winning colonial empires. The effect of this on Germanys's towns, already crucially weakened by the war, is not difficut to imagine.
The peacemakers of 1648 also imposed upon Germany a political settlement that confirmed and legitimized the atomization of Germany by recognizing over 300 German states as sovereign entities. This was the reason that the French successors of Richelieu, determined to humble the Habsburg power, regarded Westphalia as "one of the finest jewels in the French crown" and argued that any attempt to interfere with "German liberties", by which they meant the rights of petty states, would contitute a breach of international law. German disunity and powerlessness thus became part of the natural European order, acquiesced to by all Great Powers, including the larger German states.
There go the Fench again interfering with other powers, and they wonder why they are so disliked.
[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 28, 2000).]
HelgeS. Yes, I have lived else where. Why don`t you go back to Somalia and live ?
You seemed to have avoided my point, with a question. I won`t accept that, but since you are a Socialist at heart, and don`t care to address my reply, you have exposed your self for what you are. So I care not to have any further comments to you, unless you care to answer my orignal question/comments.
------------------
" Stupidity " Strange as it may seem, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.
( Stephen Vizinczey, 1933 )
[This message has been edited by B9mmHP (edited July 28, 2000).]
You seemed to have avoided my point, with a question. I won`t accept that, but since you are a Socialist at heart, and don`t care to address my reply, you have exposed your self for what you are. So I care not to have any further comments to you, unless you care to answer my orignal question/comments.
------------------
" Stupidity " Strange as it may seem, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.
( Stephen Vizinczey, 1933 )
[This message has been edited by B9mmHP (edited July 28, 2000).]
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
124K. Dang, these threads fill up fast!
If a part 3,4,5,6...etc. is necessary, let's all remember Dennis' advice above.
If these threads annoy you, don't read them.
If you can't control your words, take it to email.
If you would like to continue posting to these threads, keep it on The High Road.
Thanks,
-Dave
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
If a part 3,4,5,6...etc. is necessary, let's all remember Dennis' advice above.
If these threads annoy you, don't read them.
If you can't control your words, take it to email.
If you would like to continue posting to these threads, keep it on The High Road.
Thanks,
-Dave
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
- Status