It's Election Season: Time For The NRA To Shoot It's Collective Mouth Off
I notice that Citizen Joe over at www.ontheborderline.net is doing his one-issue, puppet dance for the string pullers at the NRA. A couple weeks ago someone at a local bar was saying how the UN wants to take everybody's gun away. I said I hadn't ever heard this and I do quite a bid of reading. He said it was all over the Internet. Sure enough it is and the links lead to the NRA away. He also pointed out that those "liberals in Madison" where trying to take our hunting rights away.
So to get educated on these burning issues, I been talking to some of friends who live and breath to hunt and fish. I asked them if they were members of the NRA. Most say they were at once but he not renewed their memberships since that NRA started backing the legalisation of "cop-killer" bullets and became so focused on the conceal and carry issue. They also told amount the membership drives they are still subjected to from the NRA. Three different sources said they've basically been screamed by NRA fund raisers and membership drivers to give, re-join or lose your guns. Asking to have their names removed from the NRA lists still hasn't stopped the NRA harassing.
Citizen Joe provides us a list of 26 reasons to own guns. Those reasons include:
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
Apparently the only issue Citizen Joe cares about is gun control, because that is all he posts. As a gun owner, I don't feel that my right to bare arms is being threatened. I'm opposed to conceal and carry, but I'm in favor of exposed and carry.
One of the commenters to Citizen Joe's post, Conn, has this to say:
" took my boy to the gun show in Baldwin...talk about a eye opener!I went to the NFA table and saw representative samples of various squirt guns (machine guns for the uninformed)a model 1921 THOMPSON, a 45 calibre machine gun made in 1921 for 10 bucks was listed for 18,000 dollars,because our Gov. does not believe we should have them.A sten gun that cost 3 bucks to make was listed at 17k!!!!!Various AK and AR15 variations in full auto were also way out there.As I have said before, we get what we deserve….have a nice day,conn."
Yo Conn, one reason a 1921 Thompson machine gun goes for $18,000 is that it is a collector's item. I've seen Martin guitars that cost $10 to make in the 1920s selling for over $50,000. I suppose our governor doesn't want us to play guitars.
Of course there are the fully automatic AK variations with big price tags. For friends I know that own these AK's, they are pretty much a big hard-on gun. They aren't good for anything but firing lots of bullets quickly into the side of a hill. Just think of what the neighborhood would look like if these one-issue gunslingers put all their energy into flower gardening.
43 comments:
Have you ever seen a hunter carryig a semi auto. with a banana clip. I have, and my first thaught was that if the guy needs that many bullets to shoot a deer, he doesn't belong out there. Most likley, anyone needing that type of rifle needs to compensate for some inferiority issue, and couldn't hit the broadside of a barn
Maybe Citizen Joe needs to take up black powder shooting. That would get him closer to 1776. That's type of shooting that makes a big band, puts out lots of smoke and gives a guy a reason to clean his gun. You can also get the buckskin apparell and look the part.
But then again, some guys just like things that make a lot of noise and insert buzz words like "full auto" into everyday conversation. Interesting how the NRA is less about provide common sense gun ownership and promoting modern day hunting practices.
The numbers of hunters in Wisconsin and Minnesota are not declining because of anything PETA or the Save The Chipmunk fringe is pushing for. They are declining because there are fewer places to hunt, people have moved to the city and lost touch with their rural connections and theres fewer people raised in hunting families.
If you weren't raised a hunter and schooled on the handling of firearms at an early age, chances are you're not going to take it up in middle age. It's like downhill skiing. I think Citizen Joe's OTBL post is an excellent example of the misinformation being put out by the NRA and its parrotts of high-caliber patriotism.
JPN,
"If you weren't raised a hunter and schooled on the handling of firearms at an early age, chances are you're not going to take it up in middle age. It's like downhill skiing."
This seems logical, but I for one started downhilling late in my 4th decade. I have a friend in his 40's who started hunting to share time with his son.
Neither one of us support the NRA or their demand that everyone carry a concealed full auto weapon.
Late:
I'm making a broad generalization that I think covers skiing and hunting. I've know a lot of guys who used to ski when they were a kid, quit and took it back up when their kids started skiing. I also know a few who never skied and have taken it up in middle age and enjoy it.
On the hunting side, I've know some who were raised in hunting families that quit and never went back. I a number of people who never acquired or fired a weapon until their 30s or older. Most acquired a hand gun and have had traing class. They bought a gun for protection. Regardless of the class taken -- I've taken a couple with my wife -- if they are not out firing at least a few boxes of rounds a year, I don't think they are safe gun owners or comfortable with a loaded weapon in their hands. Next time you see a cop at the store or whereever, ask him how many rounds he has to fire monthly to stayed certified.
JPN
My point is the ludicrous concept of a need for high powered firearms that far exceeds any rational thought. I and my son have hunted together for years, and safety has always been the first priority.
I support the right to own firearms, but most certainly not carry conceal. Do your research, the far majority of violent uses of firearms are aquaintance related. In fact most victims of violance know their assailant. A concealed weapon would not stop that type of violence.
For an interesting look a firearm statistics, check out the book Freakeconomics. One interesting statistic compares the danger to kids from having firearms in the house v. having a swimming pool in the yard. There are many more houses with firearms compared to pools and the deaths of kids from pool accidents is way higher.
It's also interesting to see how few people really support the conceal and carry issue. At OTBL, Citizen Joe says there are 70 million firearm owners in the US. That means 1 out of every 4.2 people owns a gun. I don't believe this is true. I might believe there are 70 million firearms in the US. Likewise, I bet there,s a lot of widows who never fired a gun in their life who have acquired gun collections that they haven't figure out what to do with.
I suppose the Citizen Joes of our nation think that the high-power, fully automatic weapons are going to help us take back American from the socialist hordes presently being indoctrinate by the Che' Geuvera types who have taken over public education and are increase the rape of government theft by constantly increasing our taxes for non-military reasons.
Cato:
My guess is the Swiss require training along with the ownership of a machine gun. Are Swiss men required to do military service?
---
On the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm not see the part about defending against the federal government. Are you reading that in the actual amendment. Also, what happens if the state government comes are you? Does that mean the 2nd Amendment is invalid?
Other than incidents linked to NRA sites, I have not been able to find an incident where a concealed weapon has successfully protected a crime victim.
I'm not saying such incidents don't exist, but I'm willing to bet they are rare.
Funny you bring up Switzerland where they just celebrated International Peace Day.
http://tinyurl.com/nct3k
I'm sure CATO is thankful we don't have such useless celebrations in this land of the free - home of the brave.
Cato:
A lot of the bab publicity put on guns is because the one who pulled the trigger was drunk and/or on drugs. It's a inter-related world.
Swiss gun ownership is 1 gun/6.7 people. In the US it's 1/1.2 people. US citizens are indoctrinated with with the wild West culture. How are guns and their use protrayed in Switzerland? Are guns portrayed as the big hard-on that will make every boy a man.
How much of this NRA gun bullshit is related to a natural decline in gun sales that could be attributed to a steady migration from agarian lifestyles to urban lifestyles. It's life Ford telling us we are safer in an Excursion -- when we aren't. I don't have a problem with gun ownership -- I own guns. I've got a problem with the NRA sheep that are being indoctrinated that the Commie's are trying to take their guns away. Buy now while you can.
Cato:
Looks pretty clear to me that the 2nd Amendment is talking about state-controlled militias. This would make sense, because the 13 colonies had clearly defined boundaries at the birth of our nation."
I doesn't specify the caliber of weaponry. I wonder if there were speed limits for horses back in 1776? Therefore should we not have speed limit know?
Where do you find any credible evidence that the commie's are trying to take you guns away?
Cato;
I have a demographics question for you. What is the coorelation between age and violence? The next question is what is the coorelation between poverty and violence?? Now compare these answere to carry conceal and violence. The final question is what is the Swiss poverty rate verses the poverty rate in the United States?
Wasn't it Mark Twain that once said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics? (something like that)
Cato:
So if the state militia came to take you guns away you wouldn't have a problem? You concern is only with the federal government. Am I reading you correctly?
CATO said:
"So long as we have our weapons though we will be able to keep that machine in check; if Iraqis can cause them hell you are damn sure Americans can."
You can't be serious CATO? The Iraqi's are beating us with Improvized Explosive Devises, not automatic weapons. They know better, than to challenge a well trained, well armed entity like the U.S. Armed forces. It would be a disaster to their cause.
You can't seriously think that citizen militias would be any match for the Armed Forces controled by the Federal Government.
Besides that, they don't need to turn military weapons against us when the can maintain control through much less violent means such as buying off and controlling the manufacture and operation of voting machines, with no paper trail that can be hacked by the very same people who designed them.
Cato:
It's an interesting thought that a group of armed citizen would take back the federal government of 300 million people. Who decides when the federal government has overstepped the line and needs to be taken back? Would that be 150,000,001 people, i.e., a majority. Or would it be an insolated group of individuals, e.g., 100 armed citizen who don't like what they see?
Would we reenact like the Whiskey Rebellion -- the Latte Revolt -- and have to have Bush ride out to the group and tell them to laydown their arms and he would push for another tax cut?
Cato:
What about the Whiskey Rebellion? That happen after we were a nation. A group of farmers didn't like the tax structure, got madder than hell and rose up in arms against the federal government. Washington saddle up his horse and rode out to tell them to cut that shit out. Remember that Washington was their commander in chief in the Revolutionary War.
The Boston Massacre is more propaganda stirred up by the pamleteers like Tom Paine -- a man who could run a demolition company but would be out of business in the construction business.
CATO:
It's not 1776 anymore.You don't have to keep your powder dry, and muskette clean to oppose the government.
I repeat.
You can't seriously think that citizen militias would be any match for the Armed Forces controled by the Federal Government.
Cato:
That's exactly my point. Citizen militias would be a Nerf sword compared to government forces. Remember, our's is not to reason why, but ours is to do our die.
So it's the principle of thing. Correct?
It seems to me that our armed forces are composed of citizens. Where are National Guard members, when they are not on Guard assignments?? Where does an armed service man and women come from in a volunteer army?
Rember that the constitution is for all segments of our society, not just a select few that fit inside a very small box. That even includes us poor voting, taxpaying socialists.
But then, OUR people that are in the armed services typically don't come from socially elite circles, or go to the "Privileged Schools".
Cato:
When is the last time you spent an hour in a high school classroom? When is the last time you thumbed through a high school history textbook?
I found a copy of the high school history textbook I read in Hudson High in 1972-73. For goodness sake, they spent about 10 pages with pictures on the Civil War and slavery. They spent less on the Revolutionary War. General high school history courses are high level survey course. They are a squirtgun not a firehose.
You, like most adults, have faulty memories about what you learned in high school and what was taught in high school classes. I'm sure the Constitution was mentioned, but I wasn't an extrensive indoctrination where students where required to memorize the whole thing.
Cato; yes I've read the document, and I also understand that there is an understanding as applied in court defining the spirit of the law. The constitution applies to all citizens (the poeple) in this country. Sorry Cato but you're a bit too neurotic for me.
Contrairy to what you may think, there is not a class distinction based on the letter of the law. The constitution is based on the protection of all people, and yes from abuses by the government. however, that does not imply that any person serving in the armed forces has any less rights than you or I. Those rights in and of them selves are a protective shield, and incentive for all of us to preserve those rights.
CATO:
You make some really wild presumptions.
1. "Yes I seriously think that a civilian army could destroy the army of the United States. 300 million v 1 million."
I find it far fetched, though no entirely outside the range of possiblity that the U.S. Government would become so tyranical that the entire population (300 million) would feel compelled to over throw it.
2.In Iraq, right now, our Army cannot hope to "secure" the area or whatever they hope to accomplish. Iraq is smaller than the US and does not have a history of its people leading and winning revolutions against tyrannical governments. Yes, alot of people would be slaughtered by the government in this type of scenario, but the government would not emerge the victor."
Even assuming this wild scenario,outlined in my answer to #1
as in Iraq, the only way to defeat a standing army is through guerilla warfare and mass disruption and violence achieved not by the cache of weapons stockpiled in our garages but by explosive devices, and other non-conventional warlike revolutionary tactics. A face to face shoot out with the Army would be doomed to defeat, and if the scenerio ever arose that the U.S. Government became so tyrannical the the majority deemed it need to be overthrown, I would want you to be planning the tactics with you pip squeak garage band arsenal.
3."However the fear is not of the US government occupying the US anyway, it's when the US government is too thin across the globe playing cop and some "terror" breaks out here that so-called "peacekeepers" (who are now authorized to do offensive operations, and have done so in Africa, and who Bush has called for having a standing army...) from the UN come in that would get me more worried.
Another amazingly fanciful pipe dream.
The U.N. is notorious for being impotent as a peace keeping military force. I can't imagine them ever being competent enough to defeat this countries Armed Forces.
Norseman:
You said:
"The constitution is based on the protection of all people, and yes from abuses by the government. however, that does not imply that any person serving in the armed forces has any less rights than you or I."
I won't judge whether the rights of those in the military are less but the are different. Military personel are under a totally different set of laws than civilians, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
http://tinyurl.com/gm9u2
Back to the theme of the post, you guys are putting me to sleep.
I am amazed at the pressure the NRA applies when they call. I grew up in corn-fed big buck country in central Wisconsin. The kind of area where most farmers had the trophy bucks hanging in their barn long before opening day. Every birthday or Christmas one of my presents always was long and thin, and was made by Remington. I target practiced with Mom because Dad worked shifts and when I was old enough to hunt small game etc. I was forced to not only pass the DNR saftey course but also Dad's much more dificult course. I joined the NRA because dad said they supported habitat for hunters. Little did we know that they would become the extremist lobby machine tht they are now. I still hunt with dad and my yearly purchace of a deer tag makes me the choir that they need so badly to preach. My answer to the NRA phone rep is always the same. "You (NRA) have become a one trick pony that has forgotten your charter. You now feed off of fear and support weapons production that have uses only for crime, killing, and profits. I own a dozen (hunting) guns and I have no fear that my government has any intention of taking them away. The NRA should be ashamed, and abolished."
I think it is funny that my father and I, hunters and gun owners for life, quit the NRA. Meanwhile my brother in law (A Rush Limbaugh wannabe) who never owned or shot a gun in his life is a proud member of the NRA.
Ragin:
You take on the NRA is the same as what I have been getting from those avid hunters I've know all my life. I think the NRA has become another string the the Republican put arsenal that gets the one-issue gun voters to pull the ballot box lever for the Repuplicans.
I'd be interested to hear Cato defend the one-issue voters that solely sucker the NRA teat of the milk of misinformation.
ragincrazin;
Thanks for the post. I am in total agreement with you. There is no "BIG BROTHER", nor is there a conspiracy to take our guns away. I also am a hunter. I hunt in both Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and each group I hunt with places a priority on safety.
I posted earlier asking for demographic information that hasn't been answered. The facts are that stranger assaults are proportionately rare. By far, the majority of firearm incidences are either accidental, or acquaintance related. A vigalante concept about toting a gun to stop the bad guy simply is perposterous.
It is very rare that an assailant telegraphs an intent to assault(especially in stranger assaults). There are other mechanisims availabe that would be much more effective than a firearm, in those situations. I'm not a proponent of people not having the right to own firearms, or to have them in their homes. But in all situations, safety should be a first priority. Negligence is what usually causes accidents.
The NRA supported carry conceal issue is poorly justified. I've seen the proposed NRA training and it's inadequate at best. The point where an individual desides to carry a firearm also creates a higher leval of culpability for that person. Think about it; A bank robbery is occurring, police respond to the robbery, and "Joe Vigalante" jumps in with a firearm. How would you expect a police officer to respond? What training, and psychological evaluations has that person gone through? At the point where a firearm is drawn, is the person able to use it, and able to accept the consequences? What about innocent people that are downrange? Carrying and taking action with a firearm is entirley different than the conceptual discussion of that act. It's real and you can't debate your action, call time-out, or do go-backs.
Norseman,
I know about all the studies and demographics have a big part in it.
I have been properly trained and am experienced in safety and proper handling of weapons, including hand guns. But given the freedom to conceal and carry never made sense to me. People make mistakes and if your statement about aquaintances being responsible for many shootings, why would I want to introduce another gun to that equation? I would not take the risk. I was in a gas station hold up in st Paul years ago and as I was face down on the floor, I was not thinking of how easy and heroic it would be to stand up, pull a 9mm and plug the robber. I certainly have the skills to do it, but agree with you that there is no way to understand the effects doing it would have had on me. I do know one thing, If I pulled it, I would not play police officer. I would use it. I am glad that I didn't have the option, yet may also be fortunate that that holdup did not go bad.
Cato:
We are in agreement on whose responsibility it is to read the Constituion. It is every individuals responsibility -- if they choose (it's a free country).
You skipped over the quantity v. quality implied in my question and went on to talk about "lies" being taught in public schools. What are the big lies being taught in public schools?
CATO:
You convinced me. I'm on my way to Wal-Mart to start building my personal arsenal (as JPN says emphasis on arse)to protect myself from the inevitable scenerios you've made me aware of.
I'm going to stop worrying about losing my job, and my health insurance, getting sick and amassing a pile of debt that will cause me to lose my home and every worldly possession I own.
Since I have a limited attention span , I can only worry about 1 catostrophic possibility at a time, so I will substitute my usual worry about lossing my job and the potential consequenses of that and start worrying about collecting my own personal weapons of mass destruction to defend myself from the inevitable coming of the American 4th Reich.
Cato:
Point of information: when Andy uses the word "Reich," is that like planning the Hitler card. Doesn't that fall under who's ever rule that was?
666,
Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
I didn't mean to invoke Goodwin's Law.
I don't think I did, at least intentionally.
I'm so sorry.
OK, let's see, How bout I refer to the
coming tyranical socialist threat?
I that better??? 666?
Andy:
It is entirely up to you to decide where or not you what to break the law. I happen to be wearing a striped shirt today and had a referee flash. Cato, he's all yours.
Cato:
Most of these things they teach don't exactly appear to be lies to me.
However, suppose I went to a private school like Hill-Murray. Do you think I would learn a different spin on American history.
CATO:
Some facts for you:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 654,092
Cancer: 550,270
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694
Diabetes: 72,815
Alzheimer's disease: 65,829
Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762
Septicemia: 33,464
Nowhere on that list from the CDC,
did I find "Death by Government"
So I googled that, and found a page listing slightly over 100 deaths over several decades with a quote from (surprise, surprise ) Uncle Ludwig Von Mises at the top.
#3 on the the list of deaths by Government was John Africa of the infamous MOVE organization in Philidelphia.
Here are a few choice words from John to the Mayor of Philidelphia.
May 13th 1985-War On Osage Avenue
"If MOVE go down, not only will everybody in this block go down, the
knee joints of America will break and the body of America will soon fall
and we mean it,"..."We ain't gone fuck around, if them mutha fuckers try
anything next door we gone burn 'em the fuck out, if they succeed in
commin thru the walls they are goin to find smoke, gas, fire and bullets...
Before we let you mutha fuckers make an example of us we will burn this
mutha fuckinin house down and burn you up with us. We know about all
those odorless chemicals yall can put thru walls to paralyze people or
put people to sleep, or even kill people..."But we got detectors, we got
canaries, and we got seorians (possibly a reference to saurians, which
are lizards)... if that detector shows signs of foreign odor in the basement
or any other part of this house, if any of our canaries drop dead, or if any
of our seorians begin to vomit or wheeze, we are goin to burn that god
dam house down next door and burn them mutha fuckers up in it."
-Excerpt From A Letter MOVE Members Sent To Philadelphia Mayor
Wilson Goode Two Days Before The May 13th, 1985 “Confrontation”
Between MOVE And the Police
Since I don't now and never have engaged in the types of activities that MOVE members did, I feel ( and I'm sure CATO would think naively so ) that I'm not in any imminent danger of being killed by the government.
I'd say my chances of #1 or #2 on the CDC list are a slightly greater concern to me, although I don't currently loose any sleep about those either.
Gotta run, I think Fleet Farm's having an ammo sale today.
CATO:
Let's stick to the U.S.(our government) in the last 40 years.
In the U.S. 43 people died from being stuck by lightning in 2005.
An average of 2.5 were killed annually by the government.
Based on the death by government website of 100 over 40 years.
I'm 17.2 times as likely to be stuck by lightning and die than to be killed by the government.
I'll take my chances.
Gotta go buy a lotto ticket.
I'm feeling lucky:-)
Andy:
Do a figure for how many people died because of free-market capitalism?
CATO:
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)
Source http://tinyurl.com/5ahtl
I thought it was you that was the rationalist and I was the
emotional whiner?
Are the thunderstorms over for the week? if not I gotta go hide.
Anonymous:
I have no idea how many people have been killed by Free Market Capitalists and no idea of how to calculate such a figure. There are just too many variables of greed.
CATO:
Yes, you showed this to me before.
I rejected it before and even watched most of it again so I could reject it again.
As far as Socialists multiplying around the world, I think it's quite the opposite. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the capitalists in this country have less to fear and are slowly dimantling the "socialist" benifits that the "socialist" FDR created to protect American citizens from financial devastation. Like Soc. Sec. etc.
I am not necessarily mocking your defense of the second amendment. I'm
mocking the notion you have that your punny little arsenal would even be remotely effective against the greatest military power that has ever existed on earth.
If you feel that enslaved by a government that allows you to say virtually anything you like and do almost anything you like I think you need to seriouly evaluate the freedoms that you do have.
I am concerned about the Patriot Act, probably more than 80% of Americans, but I don't have any fantasies about grabbing my guns and overthrowing the current leaders by force.
Should the U.S. even have a government so evil that it needed to be overthrown by force, your pip squeak weapons would be like pea shooters. Even the Iraqi's have figured this out, they are not attacking our forces with guns.
They have improvised much more effective tactics against us.
I am even more concerned about how the Republicans are hacking away at the very inferstructure that is currently public and for the use of all,and causing hundreds of thousands real economic pain as a result of their policies, than them knocking on my door at night and randsacking my home for guns.
Cato;
How can you compare the The (OLD) soviet Block nations to any form os socialism?? I don't happen to be one by the way. The last I knew they weren't even close to the "Marxist" concept of Communism. I'd be more incline to label them dictatorial regimes.
To support a system that attempts (given human failings) to give everyone a chance to get an education, and provide the basic ability to survive, and an opportunity to succeed, seems much more desirable than a narcissistic environment where the only compassion is self and profit.
Norseman,
You just labeled yourself a socialist whether you want to admit it or not.
You see, anyone who thinks Soc. Sec. ia a good idea is a Socialist. Anyone who wants public schools is a Socialist. The whole damn country and world is filled with those damn Socialists according to the reich wing. ( Goodwin's I don't care ).
Is it funny but my parents supported all those things 50 years ago, and you know what they called themselves?
MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!!!
Well thank you andyrand, now I know who I am!!! I'm a Christain, a Socialist, and an average middle class American Citizen!!! An "By-Golly", I'm OK!!!! and you know what, your ok also! We may have a conscious, but THAT'S OK!!! Hey, rather than make a profit, we may even stop and help someone in need.
CATO:
You said:
"To clairify something, I am sure all of you self professed socialists are so-called "Democratic socialists", that is to say that you perfer government run institutions run by a government who takes it's orders from the majority. This is opposed to me, a person who perfers a government with no dominant factor, also known as a Republic and interestingly enough, the legal form of government in this country."
I have never claimed to be a socialist. It is your definition of Socialism that places people like me who believe that Soc. Sec. and public education are good into the Socialist box. That would most likely hold true of the tyranical majority of people in this country.
It's obvious that you don't believe in Democracy. I'd venture to say the vast tyranical majority does.
How long has it been since Mill introduced the idea of the tyranny of the majority, 140 years? Yet we have never had the pure Republic you speak of in practical terms. And by the way Mills on Liberty post dates the Constitution which I'm sure you're aware.
I remember reading On Liberty at the age of 19. Even then, though I don't necessarily disagree with Mill's arguement, I found him unrealistically idealistic.
It not that I find many of your arguements wrong, logically they are probably very valid. Yet from a practical standpoint they are, like Mill, unrealistically ideal. I find it admirable in a way, yet again totally impractical.
The type of "socialism" you accuse us of is in my opinion more democratic than socialist.
When you speak of "a government with no dominant factor". What exactly to you mean since you compare this to the majority.
Keep in mind that the "majority" is always shifting, usually not dramatically but always changing. In my opinion this is what keeps us from becoming extreme. When one side of the political spectrum gets too powerful, the other usually gains favor to bring us back into balance.
As far as Chavez is concerned. I used to find him an interesting provokator to the Bush administration. Some of what he has done has helped the less fortunate in his country could be seen as admirable, but I am beginning to see him as a budding dictator. His recesnt chummyness with Castro and Iran, and believe it or not his U.N. tirade against Bush have made me lower my opinion of him emensely. At the same time, it has raised my admiration for our country's tolerance of free speech. Can you imagine some other leader going to Venesuela and calling Chavez "The Devil" and leaving that country without a violent outrage against that leader?
I believe it is only in this country that one actually enjoys that kind of political freedom without retribution.
CATO:
Perhaps of interest to you:
http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm
"Mill also allowed that conventional economic analysis could not show that socialism was unworkable, and suggested as his own ideal an economy of worker-owned cooperatives. Commentators have argued inconclusively over whether this is a form of socialism or merely "workers' capitalism".
So then Cato; are you implying that there shouldn't be majority rule, but and elitist rule?? We have a multi party system, should there only be one party twisted to your skew of life???
I'd suggest that with the majority rule, and the checks and balances system that we have, though not perfect, does help prevent a totalitarian state. A system that you seem to support may become that. Might/money makes right??
Post a Comment