Printable View
The government controls the use of weapons, so naturally they're going to have things but use them only under specific circumstances (i know i know, like tyranny -but more I meant national defense). No-one needs a howitzer to shoot off on their farm on July 4 and if anyone thinks they should have a right to own a howitzer for self-defense then that's just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The constitutional right to bear arms is not for self-defense. It's to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Anybody in America you think shouldn't be allowed to have a gun? Babies? The mentally retarded?
Same thing isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
How does this article support your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No. Nothing like freedom of travel or freedom of movement is directly stated in the constitution, AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Illegal detention is definitely a thing, as well as unlawful arrest, not to mention kidnapping.
Actually, there simply must be legal precedent.
Atomic bombs? VX nerve agent? air strike drones? Inter continental missiles?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Saying, "If I can't have 'em, no one should have 'em, and vice versa" is not hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who are you to decide what other people need?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not the one deciding. I'm only giving my opinion that saying you need a howitzer for self-defense (from tyranny) is silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Who are the US to decide who should have nukes?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://i.imgur.com/95asiad.jpg
Now that I see it, I want it. Can't quite put my finger on why.
Maybe because it looks like a giant dick.
But the cops can't just pull you over 'cause they're bored, cause that is against the constitution (as I understand it). How is forbidding you to travel on a plane any different?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That is what I imagine banana's back yard looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Doesn't look like a giant dick to me. It looks a bit short, relative to the size of the balls. Decent girth though.
The camo paint is a nice touch i thought. I mean no-one is going to recognize that as a gun now.
It'd look virtually invisible in a forest of 100ft trees.
So would your mom.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Illegal ImmigrantsQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Follow me now...Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
She says....
She says it was CLEAR. Then she says....Quote:
It was clear to me that he did not have a psychiatric illness that would justify involuntary hospitalization
and the patient was held against his will for two days. Why? Great question. The author gives two answers.Quote:
I ended up admitting this patient
the first...
Does that strike you as medically informed opinion? Or corrupt selfishness?Quote:
the order to release the man who might be the next mass shooter would not be signed with my pen
her second reason...
Can someone explain to me how it's a "benefit" to prevent a man from buying a gun when he's committed no crime and for whom there is no medical justification for him to be forcefully institutionalized.Quote:
the one concrete benefit of officially committing him would be that he could be prohibited from buying a gun from any federally licensed retailer.
I don't want armed officers in school (unless private school and private security paid for privately).
I don't want teachers trained to be armed with government funds.
I want people who have developed the proper training and credentials on their own time to be allowed to carry in a school just like they can at home, in a car, and at the store.
This is not factually accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Interesting perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Deterrence is one of the components to solve this problem. Are we ridiculing deterrence now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nobody should have these.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Also I'm the guy who thinks these things exist because governments want them so they can leverage over other governments mainly. I think if enough people embraced a free market such that it could sustain without reverting to government again, threats like nukes would swiftly be eradicated.
The people who literally just fought a war against a tyranny declared that it is necessary for people to own the 18th century equivalent of howitzers in order to avoid tyranny at a later date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
When people with skin in the game (like the American founders) say one thing, I'll tend to give it more credence than what those without skin in the game (like me or you or any of us) have to say about that thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/opini...opf/index.html
How many whiny snowflake-isms can you count in that piece?
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They'd all be detonated. Threat overQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
They're a liability for business and consumerism. They're a liability for getting rich by selling people things. For people trying to set up mutually beneficial market contracts, having such big destructive power is bad news. Stock values would rally on the news that business will be better due to a decreased risk of nuclear war (or nuclear accident).Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Even if this isn't persuasive, what we know for sure is that destructive nuclear power and the incentive to have such associates with states. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't associate with free markets if states did not exist in the nuclear force space, but it is the case that it does associate with states and doesn't with the private sector.
Except that having a gov't is one of the most hugely popular memes in human history.
The free market has already spoken on this matter.
In a way that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I agree that people want government and that even if incredible prosperity at the hands of totally free markets was handed to every living soul on the planet on a silver platter, most of the world would SWIFTLY return to wanting to have states that promise to protect them and promise to help them.
This is one reason governments need to maintain a constant threat by "enemy" states. If every nation got along just fine, government would be dangerously close to redundant. Certainly militrary would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
When the global economy was essentially agriculture, economic growth was achieved by getting more land, and it was a zero sum game. After industrialization and especially the modern information markets, things have changed quite a bit. Conquering land and waging war makes less and less economic sense. Sure there's still the odd attack to secure resources or some key strategic target, but that's a massive difference to even a few decades ago, let alone the history of mankind where perpetual war was the norm, with some short periods of peace in between.
I do think we need governments for the foreseeable future, in one form or another. Wuf's sort of suggested replacing them with churches, I'm not so sure about that. However, I don't see what we need close to 200 governments for, maybe 1 or 3 would be enough.
Hmmm, I wonder if that makes tyranny more likely...or less likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Sheesh
Gov'ts exist at more than just the national level, and they deal with different issues, many of which are based around defining justice and providing/maintaining infrastructure. Even at the national level, protection from enemies is not the whole story.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
War is more or less a constant though,so there's no reason to think we'll ever reach a point where every nation just gets along just fine. There's plenty of real threats out there; you don't need to manufacture them unless you're promoting war for shady reasons (e.g., Iraq War II).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Perhaps war is a constant because it's good business. And by business, I mean the kind of business that politicians and generals invest in.
For example, the colonel who analysed the nerve agent allegedly used in Syria on behalf of the British Government, he owns a company that specialises in chemical warefare defence. In Wiltshire, no less. Over $100m in contracts with USA and UK military, his company boasts.
That one guy, that one sample, that potential conflict of interest, and we're forming foreign policy towards Assad based on that anlysis.
The British government know exactly what they're doing.
On a related subject, you following this Sarkozy thing? He is in DEEP SHIT. Word has it he directly ordered the killing of Gadaffi, in an attempt to silence him about these allegations of dirty Libyan money that are now surfacing. Tony Bliar is neck deep in this too, there's potentially dodgy Libyan money going his way too, this is big big news. The events that led to the toppling of Gadaffi were French-led, with direct UK and USA involvement. It was a NATO operation. BBC haven't got much to say about it though.
War is good for business, at least for those who are in control of militaries, that's why it happens.
I'd say from the beginning of time economies have been positive sum. The agricultural economy you describe is positive, including all sorts of stuff from selectively breeding crops to changing community organizational structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Though your point is taken because as you further described, it does seem to be that war used to be more productive than it now is.
I've suggested that churches are one way private sectors adjust for things when governments don't crowd the space.Quote:
I do think we need governments for the foreseeable future, in one form or another. Wuf's sort of suggested replacing them with churches, I'm not so sure about that.
Do you think this in terms that there shouldn't be any localization of government? What I'm getting at is that technically the US isn't just one government but many many governments that include the federal, state, city, and local governments. It certainly seems that they have different domains where they do better (or worse). For example, education policy is much more accessible to voters when the curriculum comes from local government than from the federal government.Quote:
However, I don't see what we need close to 200 governments for, maybe 1 or 3 would be enough.
Ironically, if these warmongers were anything like all the warmongers of pre-modern history, the war they conduct would be very bad for business because they would all be dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Warmongers of pre-modern history had real skin in the game, and they died when they fucked up. Contemporary warmongers from the West have zero skin in the game and they suffer near no consequence when their opinions get others killed.
I'm thinking it in terms of a global company. Having regional localisation where necessary, but perhaps only one central government that oversees everything. Nationalism is divisive and makes it harder for people to cooperate and live peacefully, seeing all humans as one nation might alleviate that. Wars probably wouldn't end altogether but it's harder to imagine any extended ones or world wars. Nuclear disarmament would likely happen. Economically it could be yuuge, think economies of scale. No tariffs, tolls, totally free movement of labor, resources and goods. The same laws everywhere, or at least based on the same framework. Far easier and more effective collaboration in research, technology, disaster relief etc. I see plenty of potential, even when thinking about it seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Holy shit man. It's like you don't understand human beings at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
If you lived in a country with any semblance of economic success, or that wielded any significant military might, or where 'happiness' was not measured by equality of outcomes....you would not be talking like this. So think about that the next time you want to slam the United States and tout the contrived success of your Scandinavian shithole.
You know what though...let's play this game.
First question, what are you going to do with all the Muslims? 1.8 billion people, roughly a quarter of the global population, would rather fight and die than embrace a world with "the same laws everywhere". How are you going to have "effective collaboration in research, technology, disaster relief etc" if women aren't allowed to speak?
How is your hippie-rainbow planet gonna handle that?
fypQuote:
1.8 billion people, roughly a quarter of the global population, would rather fight and die to embrace a world with "the same laws everywhere".
note - not good laws
cocco, do you suppose that if everyone in the world had true freedom of movement, with the right to live and work anywhere, that you'd have the same amount of people going to USA and Australia as you would Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia?
What would happen is everyone would want to move out of their shithole desert and come live in lovely places where the weather is nice and crops are plentiful.
Open global border would result in massive mobilisation of people, and it would mostly be going in the same direction... from Asia/Africa to Europe/America. You think that's ideal?
It's really ironic that what Cocco described is essentially a fascist's wet-dream
I wasn't proposing that it should be done overnight, I was describing an idea of what would be an ideal (or closer to) scheme. Maybe in a few decades, with an additional few for refinement and getting over major bugs. A few decades is a blink of an eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Think of it as do all people in England now live in downtown London? No, they can't afford it, or for some other reason it doesn't make sense for them. This would be exactly the same, just on a bigger scale. There are a variety of reasons and motives behind people living somewhere or wanting to move. If all of the planet was under the same fiscal and administrative umbrella, it would make perfect sense to put resources into developing all of them. It wouldn't make sense just to go steal oil from some country, it's already yours and letting the infrastructure rot there is your problem. Skin in the game? Oh and there is already a massive mobilisation of people from many areas, and either way it's gonna keep getting worse unless something changes drastically.
Ong: people form illogical attachments to what is familiar over what is potentially better. Most people want to live near where they were born. Only in extreme conditions will people flee their homeland en masse. Loss of industry, exhaustion of local resources, war, unrestrained criminal elements, etc.
Recall a couple years ago when wuf was saying that moving to another country was "unviable?" It's not economically unviable, not prohibitive in hardship of travel unviable, so what was unviable? It was my assertion that people would not have a visceral attachment to their childhood homes. He was right in that regard. Even if it's practically viable for people to move to anywhere in the world at any time, exercising their preference for whatever gov't in that regard, it is impractical to assume that the value of one's homeland is nil.
In general, people would rather fight to the death to keep whatever gov't is in place than to learn to speak a new language, in an otherwise effectively identical gov't.
***
As for your assertion that people whom live in cultures different to yours would definitely swarm to be a part of your culture...
well...
Can I just say ethnocentrism and leave it at that? 'Cause someone who's a successful businessperson in Nairobi, Kenya probably thinks it's more likely that you would gladly leave rural Britain to live in a thriving metropolis in a tropical paradise.
Nairobi, Kenya
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...5148f0a032812c
It won't happen given a century.Quote:
I wasn't proposing that it should be done overnight
How many Indians will want to stay in India? There's a billion people there, poverty is rife, and it rains like the end of the world for an entire season.
How many Nigerians want to stay in Nigeria? It's brutal hot, either monsoon country or desert. There's another 200 million odd that like your proposal.
It's all very well for you up in Finland, where most people will also want to move away from, since it's so fucking cold. Here in the UK, we speak the most spoken language in the world and our weather is tolerable. It's developed, lots of people thriving.
Basically, given global open borders, the bulk of the world's population would move to one of USA, UK, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. I'd expect Spain and Portugal to rank pretty high too. Me? I'd fuck off to Iceland, hoping it's too cold for everyone else.
That's a nice image of Nairobi, better than this one...
http://africanspicesafaris.com/websi...m-day-tour.gif
Ong: the opposite seems to be true.
In the US, we have totally open borders between states. People can just live wherever they want. So you would think that the most prime real-estate is in Southern California. And to some extent, it is, but only for the super wealthy. Everyone else wants to LEAVE. California was recently ranked 50th in quality-of-life.
Just for fun, try and get a price quote on a moving truck going from San Francisco to Dallas. Then get a quote for the same truck going from Dallas to San Francisco. The trip away from San Fran will cost 3x as much.
You pretty much nailed the reason why... economics. People can't afford to live in Cali. In cocco's world, we're magically wiping out economic inequality, so it's all about weather and culture now.Quote:
Ong: the opposite seems to be true.
Well, in Cocco's world it wouldn't happen either. No one would have time to relocate while they are waiting in line for beet rations.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think one problem that cocco has is he believes that people are inherently good, given the chance. I'm very much unconvinced. There have been countless peeople given the best possible chance to do good, and they become corrupted by power.
People are inherently cunts. Everyone is at least slightly selfish, that's the instinct to survive. That old chestnut of pressing a button to kill a random person to save your own life... we're all pressing the button. And after pressing the button, we're all gonna think about pressing it again because we can. We probably don't press it again, but we think about it. And some people will.
Cunts. It's perfectly natural. Embrace it.
Just the title says all you need to know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U786cpd5huY
We all have the potential to be cunts, it's mostly a circumstance. By cuntism I mean selfish disregard of others for personal gain, not bananaesque douchebaggery. The only way to combat cuntism is equality, the only way to combat douchebaggery is /ignore.
Is that your only critique of my post?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
'Cause if all you got is a picture which demonstrates that a city's skyline isn't indicative of every neighborhood, then that's pretty weak.
I was specifically referencing a successful businessperson in a decent to large sized city, and you respond by pointing out that not everyone in the city is a successful businessman?
You've lost your edge. Wolfy AF.
Nasty_area_of_london.jpg
lol, wrong on both countsQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It's also painfully ironic that you're denouncing cuntism and douchebaggery while simultaneously advocating the homogeneous human society envisioned by Islamic extremists and Hitler.
The successful businessman in Nairobi probably won't be so successful once all the not-so-successful people disappear to somewhere nice.
It's not a bad neighbourhood, it's a slum. That's an indication of a shithole that lots of people are desperate to leave. Bad neighbourhoods in London don't look like that.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I can't think of a bigger example of willful blindness than to assume the title of a youtube video is accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Does that Fox News Analyst have anything else on his resume that might qualify him as competent in world affairs?
google image - "london slum"
vast majority of images black and white
Nasty_area_of_london.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LbB0cQLY5Ao/maxresdefault.jpg
Nasty_area_of_london.jpg
http://www.dandydad.co.uk/wp-content...k-fire-001.jpg
They don't shit in carrier bags and then sling them in a random direction in these places.
Well, most people don't, and those who do don't need to.
History says that excessive government power leads to oppression.
Bill says: "Yeah but, cmon, that wouldn't happen if the government was REALLY big and ruled the whole planet. Right?"
If I ruled the world I'd ban coffee.
Right fucking there I'm oppressing the shit out of millions, if not billions of people. But fuck them. Coffee is for cunts. Drink tea.
^You just lost my vote. Tea is ok. Coffee is essential lifewater.
Vote? Haha how cute.
Better question is do any of those qualifications carry weight commensurate with being seen on Fox News, or is just that Trump saw him there and thought he'd be great in Survivor WH?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
He was US Ambassador to the UN. It's not like he just got hired because of nepotism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Tea is for fags, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pretty sure you just committed a hate crime there.
Hating tea isn't a crime.
I know he was ambassador to UN. I just doubt that influenced the decision to hire him as much as being seen on Fox News was.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand