Boris, Previously, the citizens of our country were kept in the dark about even the most trivial matters. The fact that Roosevelt was in a wheel-chair was kept from the public by the media (which used to be much more controlled by our government) for many years for fear that the public would perceive him as weak. Our high-ranking government officials were usually presented to the public in a respectful manner by the media. Although we now hear almost everything (the good, the bad and the ugly), there is probably more openness in our government now than ever before, partly due to the competitiveness of the media and the freedom of information act.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, because apathy is, I believe, at the heart of the matter. Every four years we here in America have a well-regulated revolution. It's when we try to throw out the old administration and put a new one in, and we're pleased to call it an election. Lately these little revolutions have become three-ring circuses where we get to see more of a candidate's charcter than we'd really like to see. That's when I take notes about behavior, then turn off the TV and get my information straight from the horse's mouth, i.e., the candidate's own camp. I then decide, without mass-media assistance, who has the better plan for the nation (read: who told the most convincing story) and back that camp. Guns and bullets won't help in these revolutions. The ballot is your bullet. I know a lot of people cross their arms and snort that your vote doesn't count for anything anymore. Well, consider the tobacco tax and affirmative action. Whether or not you supported it, consider it. THE TOBACCO TAX was the bane of smokers everywhere. I believed it was wrong and voted against it. (I don't smoke.) When it passed, my father griped and moaned at the increase in the price of his cigarettes. I had to remind him that it passed by one vote. Had he gone out and done his civic duty, it would have tied. Had just one friend of his gone and voted against the tax, nobody would be getting gouged for their smokes. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION was an idea whose time had come and gone, I believed, so I voted it down. It's continuance lost by a margin of about 2000-3000 votes. No sooner had they announced the news when the streets were filled with protesters. The headcount at the protest was at least 9000 more than had turned out to vote to keep Affirmative Action in place, and all of these people were of voting age. I don't believe that enough eligible people are registered to vote. I am, and I vote based not on party affiliation, but on platform and character. I don't jump through their hoops and I analyze the issues as well as I can. I make the most intelligent, informed decision that I can, (hopefully) free of influence by the flash-bang campaigning that goes on. And no government likes an intelligent voter.
Oxygen, My main arguement for the right to bear arms is to have some protection against a takeover. Like Boris said in a previous post, if you have enough pisted of citizens you do not need guns to change things. Does the government realize that if over half of the people go along with what they say and the rest are armed that they will have a big problem.Sure they do. A lot of people will leave the armed forces because they will not agree. I do not think on either side you will have enough people to change anything without guns. Some say the US is to powerful to win a battle with but how about when it is attacked from within? Its obvious the government wants to do away with guns.They use the media as a tool like they have always done on any issue. They imply take away guns and everyone will be a lot safer as if crime would go away. Criminals can only be prosecuted if they are caught but until then they will have guns regardless of the law. The government does have an agenda the question is is it good or bad?
Oh, I believe in the Second Amendment. "Fear the government that fears your gun." Although I think that using a bazooka as "home protection" is a little too Rambo for my tastes, I still don't think that the mere presence of a gun is enough to send anyone on a crime spree. You have to be screwed up to begin with. Perhaps what we should focus on is identifying these people before they can take an innocent life. The question is how do we do it while still respecting everyone's rights?
Oxygen, I agree that the key is to find ways to prevent crimes although no matter what you do there will always be some innocent people getting shot,knifed,or attacked. Why doesn't the government spend our money trying to accomplish this? It seems to me they are not interested they are to busy feverishly working to abolish firearms. Think about it this way, our government would rather spend 32 plus billion a year on black projects than seriously try to find a solution if all they want is less gun crimes. I believe they have a something different in mind. They attack owning firearms from every angle using tragic cases involving children or anything else to get the upper hand.Consider this,Montana is one of the states with the most firearms yet they have less crime than other states with not even half as many guns. The government seems to argue for all the wrong reasons and then again it may turn out not to be wrong but at that point it will be too late. Alien
First, it is not the 'government' that wages a war on guns. As a rule, guns tend to be an agenda of the Democratic party; it just so happens that this particular party currently has executive control. Second, the so-called black projects are primarily related to military technology, defense maintenance and upgrades, and espionage (including counter-intelligence). I think that they should not be black, but I also think that they are all necessary expenditures. It's quite simple: if you want the government to do more, you've got to give it more dough. But, it seems, Americans these days want the government to somehow magically fix everything that's wrong for free. But whatever the faults of the Federal government, most of the blame for your local problems lies with your local governments. That is, your state, county, and city bureaucracies. If you want your schools to be better off, your crime to go down, your resources better managed, your environment cleaner, your taxes to be cut -- why don't you attack the government right next door, instead of going after the Federal administration? Did anyone notice that most of the gun buy-back programs and the like are all <u>state</u> programs, and hence are not even federally-sanctioned? Thirdly, I view the gun-curtailment policy as sane -- and to the same degree as bazooka-curtailment policy would be if personal bazookas were actually legal right now. Lethal weaponry is not a good thing; it is not designed for self-defense; it makes results of violence more tragic than they could have been otherwise. If obtaining a gun was as difficult as obtaining a personal tank -- do you believe that shooter in Texas would have bothered? Finally, as I have already shown, guns are not an effective protection against repression; only democratic political processes are. The government is not afraid of your guns (why should they be?); rather, the Democrats need a hot political debate they can win to boost their popularity -- and gun restrictions seem like a perfect candidate. Politicians rarely consider real solutions to problems -- because as a rule such solutions are too extensive, too long-term, too controversial and too disruptive for the order of things. Politicians look for quick and cheap widely-acceptable pseudo-solutions that they can brandish in their next campaign. And the Democrats are not the only ones to blaim; the presently-Republican Congress provides a prime illustration with their budget cutbacks in contradiction to important social programs such as medicare, the school system, or space development. How would you propose that the government cut back on crime? Would you agree to more police presense (more importantly, would you pay for it?) Would you agree to more comprehensive surveillance of civilians? Do you propose that we build even more prisons, and put people away at the slightest sign of deviancy (or alternatively, would you rather execute anyone suspected of crime activity, including the falsely accused and convicted?) The best regulative policy is always prevention. Personal non-lethal weapons would surely constitute a good prevention of extreme violence. But more importantly, we must eliminate the social factors that drive people to violent crime in the first place. That means eradicating sources and markets of illegal substances. That means providing equal opportunity to all who want it. Which means spending a lot more money on quality pre-schools, high-schools and guaranteed college education for those who want it but can't afford it, raising the minimum wage, tremendously expanding police presense, providing cheap housing for the less fortunate, guaranteeing retirement, free medical services to all, deconstructing urban slums, guaranteeing minimal sustenance to those between jobs (even if only on condition of active supervised training, and only until a job-placement program actually finds the person a new job) -- in short, engaging in a whole swath of socialistic policies that the all-American mucho generation of today does not like. Should all of these policies be sensibly implemented, our tax margins would rise dramatically -- as the rich would literally have to give to the poor; at the same time hopelessness, aimlessness, and destitution would be dramatically cut and crime would be bound to plunge to unbelievable levels. There is a hefty price to be paid for universal happiness and peace -- so we must choose between paying that price, or living rich amidst misery. So far, our overwhelming tendency is toward pure egotism. And while the opposite extreme is equally impossible due to economic competition from abroad, we ought to at least be trying to find a middle ground. But too bad for us, I suppose. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 17, 1999).]
Boris- I had heard from a friend of mine from England that socialized medicine isn't all it's cracked up to be. She told me of some terrible conditions and, compared to US hospitals, she felt less like a person and more like a subject. I come from the ranks of the impoverished (my computer is piecemeal and hand-me-down) and would not accept socialized medicine for anything. I know all too well how state-run services are. Welfare systems are something that are regulated by the individual states. This allows a state to cater to the needs of it's particular population. Unfortunately, it also opens to door to another nastiness. A state gets reimbursement from the federal government for each person it has on its welfare rolls. To keep the money coming in, the states provide no incentive to get off of welfare. What you end up with is generation after generation who can only better themselves if they sacrifice the previous generation. If the welfare system was handled at the federal level, I believe it would be the beginning of an economic nightmare for the US. The needs in Kansas are different from the needs in California, which are different from the needs in New York. To ask the government to set up 50 different welfare systems and maintain them all is beyond reason. To ask them to come up with a one-size-fits-all plan is a pipe-dream. The welfare system needs reform, badly. My brother was on welfare. When he went for a job, his caseworker told him that if he found work the first benefit to be cut would be his kids' medical benefits, followed by his food stamps. This is inhumane at best. Socialism isn't necessarily a dirty word. (Never mind what Beatty said in "Bullworth".) Socialism is simply impractical for a population as widespread and diverse as the United States. (Whoops. There goes work bell. Off to labor camp, tovarisch! j.k.!)
Boris, You can't attack the local government without attacking the federal goverment or the state. They are all the same.
Oxygen, You are right about most implementations of social programs in existence today. However, do the failures of socialized medicine in England, or the failures of the welfare system in U.S. indicate that such programs are <u>impossible</u> to implement, or are they merely indications that the particular implementations currently in existence simply don't work? For example, the U.S. first attempt at democracy failed miserably. Had they given up back then and went back to an oligarchy or monarchy, we wouldn't be the "leader of the free world" today. The thing about socialism is that it sounds too good not to work; it just has to be implemented correctly. In any government program, it is probably always a good idea to implement the same sort of counter-balancing and cross-checking scheme as is embedded within our federal structure (the three-point judicial-legislative-executive system.) To prevent mismanagement, create hostile auditing agencies. To prevent undesirable results, establish clear guidelines for success (such as the ratio of people who get on welfare to people who get off) -- and reward people with bonuses when their organization's success rankings go up. Require all social programs to publish yearly statements of budget and performance for popular review, just the same as we require from corporations. Socialism <u>can</u> work. Been to Sweden lately? ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Alien, No, they are not at all the same. Your local government does most of the actual management around your area; the federal government mostly influences you only by setting guidelines. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris, I thought that too once. I can't tell them apart anymore. Maybe it was just my location. Alien
Boris- Swedes and Americans are two vastly different creatures. The demographics of Sweden are almost blandly uniform compared to those of the United States. Beyond merely healthcare issues, the daily needs of people from one end of the US to the other are too different for Socialism to properly handle. Coming from Silicon Valley, I see drastic differences just going to the extreme northern and southern parts of my state, let alone other parts of the nation. If Socialism works for Sweden, good for them. It won't work here. But I wonder, if Socialism is such a great deal, why did the populace of the USSR and East Germany live in such squalor? I saw pictures of Armenia before the earthquake. I thought it was a disaster area THEN. I know people who escaped from East Germany, and they weren't too pleased with it either. It seems that only the guys at the top were happy with it. And since it's the guys at the top who control the system of checks and balances, well, that's letting the fox guard the henhouse. I could really go on with this post, but it's back to work for me. Maybe I'll post a bit more later today.
Oxygen, As I said, it's all about implementation. What they did in Soviet Union was only part socialism; in a large way it was also a police state and a dictatorship. It involved no democracy, no universal and inviolable freedoms, and it was an example of massive micromanagement of economy and development by the state that owned every economical entity down to the street beer vendors (which, not surprisingly, resulted in failure of both economy and development.) None of these things are essential, nor indeed synonymous with socialism, as some 'conservatives' would like you to believe. Socialism (a policy aimed at equal opportunity, but does not curtail individual freedoms or growth) is not synonymous with communism (which is a policy aimed at forced equalization.) As for the different needs -- that's what we have local governmenets for. All they have to do is figure out how much money they need to sustain their local socialist programs, submit the budget request to the Fed, have it reviewed, and cash out. Alternatively, the local governments can levy their own taxes to support their socialist programs, although that might result in too much tax code confusion for businesses and mobile population alike. Also, the local taxation alternative does not work very well because states compete economically with each other; if one state raises its taxes before another, it is likely to loose industry. Thus, I tend to lean toward a federal tax-supported socialist agenda -- paid for the fed, but implemented locally and thus able to better cater to the diverse needs of our opportunity-wise diverse population. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris-So, if the government, whether local or federal, is going to provide for us equally, across the board, how much longer would we be an opportunity-wise population? Sweden, I have read, has a pretty high alcoholism rate. Alcoholism is one of the most common paths of self-destruction. Voluntary self-destruction is usually indicitive of an organism that has lost its will to live. Indeed, why try if someone else is going to take care of it for you? I believe that, in a Socialist America the economy would stagnate and we would become no more opportunity-wise than a dairy cow who has only to stand in one place and squirt out milk while someone brings the food. It may sound callous, but it's the lifestyles of the rich that make the rest of us want to get rich too. Whether or not we do it at someone else's expense is a matter of personal character or lack thereof. Socialism, while not communism, has proven to be the stepping stone from a free state to a communist state. Have you ever read the Coomunist Manifesto? It spells it out in pretty plain language. Just for laughs, compare the Communist Manifesto to the UN Charter. Some might argue that Marx should sue the UN for plagiarism.
Ha! You have unintentionally provided an excellent description of current American capitalism. (At least that is the way things would be if you removed all the corporate and governmental propoganda that convinces the middle and lower classes that all is well). The problem with American capitalism is that it is unfaithful to the original intent of the democratic capitalist system. American capitalism is becoming an aristocracy. As the years go by, the wealth distribution becomes increasingly unequal, and consequently the power distribution in America becomes increasingly unequal. The government's stance of minimal intervention stimulates this process. Since the goal of both capitalism and marxism is to eliminate unjustified inequality (ie. sweep away the aristocracy), there is no reason to condemn either system as worshipping the wrong utopia. There is nothing inherently 'evil' in either system. Ultimately, though, someone somewhere will try to measure the success of either socialism or capitalism by some standard. Capitalists will obviously suggest productivity as the standard -- so in their minds they have won. Socialists would suggest human equality -- so in their minds they will have won. The decision of which system wins is a value-based judgement. And since values are obviously biased by one's environment, one must accept that from an objective position (God's?), neither system is inherently better. Obviously socialism would fit poorly with modern America, just as capitalism is fitting poorly with Russians today. Again, this is a matter of values. One needs to wait for a new generation to grow up containing the values appropriate for the system. That being said, the ultimate goal of both capitalist and socialist systems is essentially a meritocracy, in which individuals can grow and prosper based on their innate abilities, free from outside discriminations involving class, race, etc. It is a mistake to believe that socialism creates robots. Socialist states, such as Sweden, encourage individualism (perhaps even more so than in America, as they have extra spending for culture and the arts). It is also wrong to assume that government-centralized power is necessarily corrupt. Corporate-centralized power is just as susceptible to corruption. The benefit of a government over a corporation are obvious (vote them out when necessary). Corporations aren't too easy to get rid of. Ideas are more enduring than products.
Dave, Military bases that don't exist, people being draged out of their homes in the middle of the night, inhumane projects going on as we speak,deals being made behind the scences with tax payers dollars and they want our guns should we give them up? I would like your input on this. Alien
Alien, All that you describe is (if it actually happens) a result of a government that has become detached from the people. The American national government is too large and too distant from those it governs (America is just too large a country). Additionally, state governments are too powerful, leaving the national government appearing to be a superfluous waste of money. This leads to both paranoia on the part of the citizen and to a sense in government that they can get away with anything without anyone noticing. For true, effective democracy, one needs to have small units of people whose needs and values are roughly the same.
I do not argue for the government providing equally for everyone across the board, as Oxygen puts it. At least as worded, it sounds like too extreme an equalization, leaning more towards communism than socialism. What I want the government to do is: 1) provide guaranteed and ample support for those who are in need of help. However, do not make the support unconditional as to encourage a wellfare state; condition it upon supervised progress toward resumed self-sustenance. 2) provide guaranteed life-sustenance for those who cannot afford it themselves. This includes, for example, education, medical services, public transportation, legal representation. 3) equalize the playing field during childhood. We are all supposed to be born equal, with an equal opportunity in life. Hence, there is no reason why a poorer child should get a lesser-quality daycare, guidance or education. At least until children can take full control of their lives, the government must indeed provide equally to the best of its ability (without precluding those who wish to invest extra capital or effort into their kids). It's all about evening the playing field before the games begin. <hr> It is deceiving to look back upon old America for an example of equal opportunity. Back then, people earned a living primarily through blue-color labor (which still put women and disabled at a disadvantage.) These days, it becomes increasingly important to be smart and well-educated in order to succeed. To achieve equality in the modern world, therefore, one has to do more than just be born -- and for the less fortunate, socialist support structures can provide that much-needed boost. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
