safety and politics - Page 18 - maemo.org

Active Topics

Is there a section to talk about Java ME? Apps, etc. (7)
to General by teroyk - 12 hrs, 8 mins ago
more...

Page 18 of 37

Thread Tools

Aisu	2008-11-13 , 02:40
Posts: 662 \| Thanked: 238 times \| Joined on Jul 2007	#171

Tex, I so~ wish there were "Thanks" in this forum. Voting for civil liberties always deserves a "Thank you."

If the gov't wasn't in the market, it might just correct itself... *cough* Off-topic...

But why bring that up when their view on guns and the second amendment are spot-on.

I, like Chuck Norris, love my guns and my rights. Yay for civil liberties and firearms for the upright citizenry!

Quote & Reply |

fatalsaint	2008-11-13 , 02:47
Posts: 3,428 \| Thanked: 2,856 times \| Joined on Jul 2008	#172

Originally Posted by Texrat

I tend to agree to an extent, which again, is why I voted mostly libertarian (on principle).

But to me the best party is one that doesn't even exist: The TRULY Fair-and-Balanced, Common-sense, Liberty-First party. Ah, one can dream...

NOW whose the Don Quixote?

.

Seriously, you are correct that my point of view can be abstracted to include all laws. We are again back to the Anarchy I mention before being the end result of all my views to the extreme

. So, obviously - consider practicalities - I'm going to have to give to some extent less that extreme became a reality (assuming of course, I was powerful enough to shape the way the entire system is run.)

I think that groups and/or communities have a better idea of what that group and/or community needs/wants/etc as laws and requirements. I think the federal government needs to back off (I heavily disagreed with this damn Bailout).. I think the people need to thrive, or fail, on their own hard work. Now, back to being practical, not every single community can make their own laws. It's just not realistic. However, If the Federal government would completely back off and do, what is in my opinion, it's job of protecting the borders - dealing with foreign relations, dealing with things such as space exploration/scientific studies (maybe, this in and of itself is a slippery slope), etc - and allow the local states to enact laws as determined by the people.

(wow.. me and that bold button). Now, this includes everything from say - murder, kidnapping, rape, etc - would be up to the STATES to enact such laws, the exemptions/justifications considered legal, etc. You said earlier it would be a convoluted mess.. and mayhaps that is a correct assessment - OTOH, nobody knows what Texas wants more than Texas, nobody knows what Oklahoma wants more than Oklahoma, and to insist on the government to stamp a "one sized fits all" solution to everyone is ridiculous. (again, IMHO

).

I saw this question on a political quiz.. I have no idea where they got it from.. "Two consenting adults should be able to challenge each other to a duel to the death."

I Agree. Why not?? Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the holy-heaven they want to do regarding each other.. so long as they don't include an un-consenting third party.

... And I'm off on rant again

__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!

Quote & Reply |

	Texrat	2008-11-13 , 02:48
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#173

Originally Posted by Aisu

If the gov't wasn't in the market, it might just correct itself... *cough* Off-topic...

I still have to disagree.

History clearly shows why governments got involved in the first place. Markets USED to enjoy a signifiant degree of autonomy, just as Libertarians desire, and it did not work. Human greed is inescapable, and when gross amounts of money and power are at stake, it grows proportionately. Eventually power is consolidated into the hands of a few (to wit: Standard Oil, poster child of antilibertarianism) and the rights of the rank-and-file are violated (newsflash to some: little people have rights, too).

I think one of the biggest mistakes the Supreme Court ever made was granting "human rights" to corporations. That was truly evil.

And I really don't like the idea of government protection. That gets abused, too. But the beauty of that system is that WE THE VOTERS own it. WE decide how we are governed. The unfortunate part is that too few people dig deep enough into the candidates and issues to make properly informed choices of governance... hence 2 terms for Bush [major side rant].

But why bring that up when their view on guns and the second amendment are spot-on.

*sigh* Only in Utopia...

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Quote & Reply |

	Texrat	2008-11-13 , 02:55
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#174

Fatalsaint, I won't quote your last post but suffice to say we are LARGELY in agreement on that one. I think the Fed has gone wayyy beyond its mandate. A great example is the recent abuse of imminent domain which (and this still boggles my mind) the Supreme Court upheld (!!!). And ever since the Fed discovered it could hold the highway funds carrot over the states, Congress has been able to blackmail states into just about anything. Texas *almost* fought that once (I believe it was on drinking age) but eventually capitulated like every other state. Grrr....

I also believe localities should decide issues for themselves, and that includes hot-button things like smoking in restaurants. Control over the citizenry should diminish exponentially the further one gets from local elected officials... but, thanks to our last 2 presidents, in some cases the Fed has more power over local affairs than localities (eg, No Child Left Behind). WTF???

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Quote & Reply |

Aisu	2008-11-13 , 03:11
Posts: 662 \| Thanked: 238 times \| Joined on Jul 2007	#175

Originally Posted by Texrat

I still have to disagree.

History clearly shows why governments got involved in the first place. Markets USED to enjoy a signifiant degree of autonomy, just as Libertarians desire, and it did not work. Human greed is inescapable, and when gross amounts of money and power are at stake, it grows proportionately. Eventually power is consolidated into the hands of a few (to wit: Standard Oil, poster child of antilibertarianism) and the rights of the rank-and-file are violated (newsflash to some: little people have rights, too).

I'd love an example... But... lots of regulation and gov't interference are clearly working in today's market. I'm still with the Libertarians here.

I think one of the biggest mistakes the Supreme Court ever made was granting "human rights" to corporations. That was truly evil.

Hells yes.

And I really don't like the idea of government protection. That gets abused, too. But the beauty of that system is that WE THE VOTERS own it. WE decide how we are governed. The unfortunate part is that too few people dig deep enough into the candidates and issues to make properly informed choices of governance... hence 2 terms for Bush [major side rant].

Protection for corporations is wrong. And, no, we've given up too much to feel "secure." We don't have a say in the market anymore. We could have fixed that in this election, but the people went the opposite way!

*sigh* Only in Utopia...

Utopia can't happen, but if you stop trying, everything fails and goes to pot. So, try. Reach to unattainable (or even just what we had before).

I will.

Quote & Reply |

	Texrat	2008-11-13 , 03:20
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#176

Originally Posted by Aisu

I'd love an example... But... lots of regulation and gov't interference are clearly working in today's market. I'm still with the Libertarians here.

I gave the classic example: Standard Oil. But heck, just refer to The Great Depression. Guess what the root cause was.

Protection for corporations is wrong. And, no, we've given up too much to feel "secure." We don't have a say in the market anymore. We could have fixed that in this election, but the people went the opposite way!

I was actually referring to protection for the citizenry FROM corporations.

Oh, and McCain would not have changed anything for the better vis-a-vis markets. I'm not saying Obama will, either... but McCain is more rhetoric than action (check his voting record).

Utopia can't happen, but if you stop trying, everything fails and goes to pot. So, try. Reach to unattainable (or even just what we had before).

I will.

Agreed.

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Last edited by Texrat; 2008-11-13 at 03:23.

Quote & Reply |

sungrove	2008-11-13 , 03:25
Posts: 322 \| Thanked: 28 times \| Joined on Feb 2007	#177

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

Do I think a 100% armed society is a perfect society?? Meh.. doubtful. I have no idea what it'll look like.. It'd certainly be an exciting place.

I got to this part of the thread and before I lost it I wanted to highlight fatal's line here. I think it's very important because it gives us huge insight into him and perhaps his fellow gun owners. fatal finds a gun scenario fun, right fatal? And maybe you would because you have gone through training. You are confident with such things. This confidence means that what would scare the cr*p out of most of us is something you would enjoy the challenge of. I truely don't mean this as a criticism but as something for you to keep in mind when talking to us about guns.
I'll speak for myself rather than assuming anything about anyone else here. I am absolutely terrified of guns no matter who has them.( again, remember I'm fine with limited personal and responsible gun ownership) And that includes the prospect of there being one in my own house because I'm not familiar with how guns work, how to safeguard them or how to deal with the possibility that I might actually have to use it one day. Would I actually have the nerve to pull the trigger in the proper situation? Would I know when that situation was actually self defense and when it was not?

You may say, well, the NRA advocates that gun owners get training and you should too. Well, but do I really want to live with that kind of awsome responcibility? In an event where I think it's use is warranted am I going to use it or am I going to simply be outgunned or am I going to end up killing an inocent person and have to live with that for the rest of my life? Or will something else hidious happen like my kid finding it and shooting a friend or me or going to school with it?

The other thing about that is this? I simply don't find guns fun like you do. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be going down to the shooting range on weekends to practice and keep my skills up. I'd frankly love to be doing about 12 other fun things including learning more about my Nokia.

So, think about it a bit, OK? I give you credit for both making your case and for having a sense of humor about this. Just remember that there are some of us that would rather let the police deal with such things. They get paid to take on that kind of responsibility. You are obviously fine wth it, but I'm just hoping some of that next trillion can get spent on ways to make the situation safer for the rest of us.

Neil

Quote & Reply |

fatalsaint	2008-11-13 , 03:26
Posts: 3,428 \| Thanked: 2,856 times \| Joined on Jul 2008	#178

Should we all like... hug.. and sing Kumbaya or something???

ETA: nvm...sungrove ruined it.

Quote & Reply |

fatalsaint	2008-11-13 , 03:39
Posts: 3,428 \| Thanked: 2,856 times \| Joined on Jul 2008	#179

Originally Posted by sungrove

I
So, think about it a bit, OK? I give you credit for both making your case and for having a sense of humor about this. Just remember that there are some of us that would rather let the police deal with such things. They get paid to take on that kind of responsibility. You are obviously fine wth it, but I'm just hoping some of that next trillion can get spent on ways to make the situation safer for the rest of us.

Sungrove.. I do not mean this in any negative way. But no.. I would NOT recommend you buy a gun or use one as self defense....You yourself said you do not like them and That is OK. That is the reason people like myself and the police exist.

I don't like people voting against MY RIGHT to have a gun....but I have NO ISSUES what so ever with people not wanting one for themselves. I do my damndest to make sure the people around me are safe, police do the same, firefighters and active duty .mil as well.

Like you said...I've been trained .. I've seen it in action.. I keep myself sharp on the range and I do NOT advocate uneducated gun ownership either. Having a gun is a huge responsibility, as well as a pleasure; I don't deny this.

But again... I can not support the goverment getting involved in this.