quote:

---

"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."
- Second Amendment

---

It seems to me that a well regulated militia is a lot different than a lot of private citizens owning guns for their own private use, whether that use is legal or not. People today don't own guns because they're in a militia.

Capitalism gives you Compaq, IBM, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Apple...should I go on?

You brought up computers, so I figured I would show you how capitalism works with those.

Um, capitalism gives you Wendy's, Pizza Hut, McDonalds, Burger King, Whataburger...should I go on?

Capitalism gives you choices. Private enterprise is a wonderful thing - you can make anything you want and sell it for any price you want.

Granted, there will be greedy, jealous types who want to regulate that sorta thing.

Laissez-faire doesn't mean "hands off" for the fun of it.

I'm not an economics expert, but I sure as heck know that if it weren't for capitalism, YOU and I wouldn't have the wide array of choices to choose from to buy food, or medicine, or computers.

In capitalism, unlike socialism and communism, all human relationships are voluntary.

You aren't FORCED to buy your food from one place. You aren't FORCED to buy government-issued cars, or homes.

In a capitalist society, you can CHOOSE.

"the only wheels of political economy [capitalism] set in motion are greed, and war amongst the greedy competition."- karl marx.
snap. sinopes a communist!

so.

what if i was? are you going to TIPS or something? report me to the authorities? communism might not have worked up till now, but what has capitalism brought us? debt. lots of it. I will say this though about communism: WITH OUT DEMOCRACY COMMUNISM WILL FAIL! give the taxpayer a say. where do they want to direct thier taxes? How about instead of exchanging currency, why not goods or services? computers for buildings. cars for protection? Why not give tax breaks or food stamps to voulunteers. i would volunteer my life away if only it could fill my stomach!

there are oppurtunities that we could utilize when reforming. we just gotta put our heads together. thats all that is. we're all interconnected.

I guess it's time I replied again.

No economy today is completely capitalist. Hey, I could be like Joey here and say that this is proof capitalism does not work. But I won't, because maybe it would work - if people were perfect and all! Just the way communism and such would work if people were perfect. Haha couldn't help it.

I haven't yet thought much about gun control, but I would be happy to hear the arguments for it.

Joey, in your last couple posts you used the word "girls" in each one, but you were referring to a different girl (singular, too) each time. Please stop confusing me like that!

And, wait, do you want the debate to be over? Because, sure, we could just negate each other and say that's that. Or we could argue - ahem, debate. Which is more fun? Yeah, I know I made a post last night completely contradicting what I just said, but >shrug< whatchagonnado?

quote:

---

You can't control some stuff and still call it capitalist.

---

But you can control only some stuff and call it socialist (i.e. Democrats and the point of this thread)?

If you accept the theory, (whether it ever worked or was even tried) then the discussion is over.

It's not about practicality.

For instance, Christianity has often failed in it's mission. Especially in church-controlled States. Wars and oppression brought about in the name of something essentially peaceful. But, if we accept that Biblical morality is a good idea and a proper goal, then we pursue it, regardless of history.

Once we establish the proper goal we should do our best to bring it about. We try to avoid failures of the past, but we don't give up faith on account of other people's mistakes.

Why should I quote a communist or socialist?

To show people that their governmental ideas don't work?

Hey, now that you think of it, I should.

Hey, this IS YouthNOISE...it IS for political discussion and debate.

So quote the people you want; go ahead, quote Hitler. Quote Caesar. Quote Marx.

Go ahead.

I'll just rip them apart because THEIR IDEAS DID NOT WORK and still do not work and will NEVER work.

That closes up the debate real quick.

And how in the world is China a capitalist country?

Sure, there might be dozens of different restaurants people could go to.

But if your government controls the property that place is on, controls the information you can legally obtain from that restaurant, then sorry, it's not capitalist.

You can't control some stuff and still call it capitalist.

Girls, name me some good reasons why our government should control our guns...?

"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."
- Second Amendment

That's another thing about socialist/communist countries.

You can't effectively control armed citizens because, as a last resort, (quoting Jefferson here), guns are used to protect you from a tyrannical government.

Notice how the phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free State..." is included in that.

There's a purpose for that.

Gun control supporters will continue to lose every debate.

One such example:

Australia was once a penal colony for the British Empire, so many of the citizens of this nation are descendents of convicted criminals.

Most U.S. citizens are not aware of the fact that Australia immediately outlawed private ownership of firearms after Martin Bryant, a so-called "mad murderer", killed 35 and wounded another eighteen people on the public streets of Port Author, Tasmania, in April 28, 1996, using an AR-15, .223 cal. assault rifle.

Within twelve months after the outlawing of guns were passed by the Australian government, 640,381 guns were bought off the streets at the cost of over $500 million, Australian. Twelve months later, a study was made of the effects of such radical gun control, with the following results:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%.
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!

The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.

The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".

From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize
against further controls, which are expected.

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

During the years 2001 and 2002, armed robberies, Australia wide, increased 34.1% over the period just before the elimination of private ownership of firearms.

http://www.4rie.com/

"You make a lot of generalizations, and I think you need to stop that. For one thing, everyone's yelling at you for it, with good cause."

Girls originally said that; I didn't pick up on it until later.

I picked Ayn Rand because well, the words "objective" come from her philosophy; she experienced what Soviet Russia was like - she lived there - she experienced what it was like living under that type of government.

Look, you people want to give up your rights to the government - go ahead, just go ahead. I mean, we have no rights anyway hardly.

You'd rather all be slaves than living in true freedom.

I know Orwell was a socialist when he wrote the book - was he one all his life? Hmm.

The whole thing about the governments tracking citizens and making citizens feel like they're "free" and all that ...that's what I'm talking about ...

...I didn't say I agreed with the author's philosophy.

It's a book every single person in the entire world should read - I totally believ that.

Then they can go on to a website like YouthNOISE, and look at the kinds of people who support the stuff that was described in 1984 and go, "What a bunch of morons."

Haha joey, you are a very funny person. I'm not even going to try a serious debate with you; i know that's impossible. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But before i leave this topic alone completely, I would like to make a fe parting comments;

Ayn Rand is not an accurate source of info. I haven't quoted Marx or any other socialist/communist theorist in this whole debate, so you have no basis other than lack of facts for quoting a capitalist theorist.

I don't know how the makers of Trivial Pursuit reached their conclusions, but I see no reason for a leftist bias in the makers of a game who are out to make a profit.
The very existence of government involves voluntarily sacrificing a few of your rights. This is so you are protected from people who would want to steal more of them.

The founders of the USA were for the most part concerned more with order than with freedom. Other than Henry, Paine, and Jefferson, most wanted to give people freedom only to keep them from revolting, if at all. Look at the Alien&Sedition Acts. The founders wanted most of all to protect their privileged status. That's why at first opnly rich white men could vote, and why slavery continued to exist. Unless you're going to argue that white men are superior, you can't seriously believe the Founding Fathers cared anything at all about personal freedoms.

Socialism may mean giving up economic "rights" (depending on whose definition of rights you're using), but it definitely doesn't mean giving up personal freedom. Sure, the commies want to take away personal freedom, but that's why any reasonable socialist is democratic socialist, not communist.

1984 is your favorite book? ROFL. Best laugh I've had... my entire life. 1984 is my fave book too. You definitely need an education; Orwell was a socialist. He hated Comunists b/c they were worse than the capitalists. But if you thoroughly read the section where it has goldstein's book, you'll find that Orwell was actually criticizing capitalism. The commies were the same as the capitalists (kind of like the British Labor Party, which on a two-dimensional scale is on the authoritarian right, much like republicans). That's why the pigs turned human at the end of Animal Farm. And in Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell writes in one chapter that he is convinced the world will become either Socialist or Fascist; that there is no other path. And that seems to be coming true; two US Supreme Court justices (Scalia & thomas) are members of a fascist cult within the catholic church, called Opus Dei. The rest of the developed world is very socialist compared to the US. Japan is more capitalist than any but the US, but even they have a strong socialist party. Most thirld-world dictators are fascist or communist, and many commies are little different than fascists. China's economy is capitalist, so even though the "Communist" party is in power, they qualify better as fascist than communist.

quote:

---

I've said a few times already that communism and socialism look great on paper.

---

Fine - then when girlofstrongmind says that she admires the THEORY of Communsim but admits that it hasn't worked in practice, you don't need to start screeching.

quote:

---

girls, give me an example of a social or political problem that the government should step in to regulate or help.

---

You'll really hate this Joey - but I think we need more gun control.

quote:

---

George Orwell's 1984 is my favorite book of all time. It gives a vivid description of what the world is like today.

---

ROTFLMFAO!! That's classic man... *wipes away tear* Thanks Joey, I needed that. Heeheehee...

I've said a few times already that communism and socialism look great on paper.


girls, give me an example of a social or political problem that the government should step in to regulate or help.

Republicans actually mirror Libertarians in a lot of ways; both believe (platform here, not all candidates or politicians) in a free enterprise system, low taxes, Constitutional size government (except in certain cases), but on issues like personal/individual privacy, then um, that's where they vary greatly.

Reps want to ban illegal drugs, which is completely assinine because, well, that will just create more drugs.

There are other planks that the Reps would deem too "Extreme," but for the most part, the LP is the party of former Republicans and Constitutional patriots.

I am living in another time period; well, I'd rather live in that time period. The government should operate by the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution - that's the Supreme Law of the Land. It's there for a reason and it's to keep the government at certain sizes and useful for only a select few functions.

I am totally and completely opposite of a majority of Americans.

But that's okay. I don't compromise.

Well said, girlofstrongmind ...

... and Joey, stop yelling about China. Everyone's already admitted that Communism isn't working in practice - we're talking about THEORY here.

Oh, it's alright. You (Joey) really don't know me, so I'm not offended if you bash my ideas or anything. And I meant that the theory of communism isn't evil. Depending on your definition of evil, communism's application in the real world might be. Certainly it isn't working and isn't going to any time soon at all, which I keep saying over and over and you seem to keep forgetting that I've said it. So, no, you don't at this point sound mean, you just sound deaf.

So what's the difference between Republicans and Libertarians? From what I've heard, that is exactly what Republicans stand for as well.

I have to say though, there are problems that exist in our country that aren't being solved by private charities or the individual people. There are times when the government needs to step in. It seems to me like you are stuck in an earlier time period.

That's exactly what I'm going to say.

The United States was founded as a capitalist republic.

The government has two roles here, people: 1) Provide defense against foreign attack, 2) defend personal, Constitutional rights.

Our country has gotten way off track in that regard; and UNLIKE socialist countries, or COMMUNIST countries, the people's rights belong to the State.

I don't care how "extreme" these policies are, the fact is, if you WILLINGLY give a certain right to the State (i.e., government), then pretty soon, they're going to take ALL of your rights.

girls, I really do commend you on wanting to learn more and having at least a slight interest in politics/government.

But you said communism isn't "evil."

Then you said it's "for the people."

China is referred to as the "People's Republic of China."

Yet, the people there are FORCED to abide by what the government wants them to do, they are FORCED to worship the state - they have NO freedoms.

The only "people" a communist country support are the ones controlling the government.

If you give your rights to the state, then you are a slave.

Sorry if I sounded mean, but the things people learn these days are completely one-sided.

George Orwell's 1984 is my favorite book of all time. It gives a vivid description of what the world is like today.

Gawd, Joey...you're such a *******; could you be any meaner? For Pete's sake, you don't have to attack the girl; she's trying to figure things out--ragging on her isn't going to make that happen, ***.


Here's a few things that might help in your quest for understanding:

On socialism: There are two things you need to know. 1) Straight-up, in it's purely dictionary and theoretical form, it consists of the government running a few to most of the businesses in a nation. That means it's one of several ways of running the economic system of a country. 2) There's about a million different degrees of it. Which is probably a large part of why you've gotten those mixed messages.

When Joey talks about socialism (communism also, to a lesser degree), he typically gets two things wrong. First, he assumes that extreme forms of socialism are the only kinds. Second, he adds into the definition of socialism a lot of the political aspects that have gotten meshed in with APPLIED socialism.

If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask. iqpelican@springmail.com

ADDITION:

The Libertarians. Basically, their entire political philosophy boils down to, "Get off my property." Okay, that was mean. Now Joey's going to yell at me.

A more serious definition basically is that they believe in extreme forms of capitalism, entirely w/o public oversight, and a government that basically sits around and hopes for a war so it'll have something to do. That was mean too...oh well. *shrug* They think the government should be extremely limited, would be more accurate to say. Joey'll probably say that they're the defenders of freedom and the Constitution, or something to that effect.

NO. That's not what I'm saying. One, I said that I don't think communism would work in the world today. And Two, communism is not govermnent control, it's the opposite. I agree that it has been ... abused (for lack of a better word). Some people think that to acheive communism you have to first have a dictatorship - and that gets nasty. I do NOT support dictatorship.

And if I did not admit ignorance clearly enough before, I admit it now. I'm doing my best to become informed.

Wow, now you have NO political efficacy. It's true that a lot of powers that (I believe) should be in the hands of the people, have been taken away from them, but at least there is the power to vote. Or if that's not enough for you, then get involved in politics and do something about it. I plan to.

And I'm not going to try to overthrow the government, don't go getting that idea in your head! There are things that can - need to - be improved in the government we've got. Which, like I said, is what we have to work with.

Do you understand yet? Basically, you "assumed" wrong.

---
Umm, just out of curiosity, what exactly does the libertarian party stand for?

girlsofastrongmind, you're wrong; the government, to many people, IS and SHOULD BE the solution to all social problems.

There is no such thing as responsibility; you have to depend on the government for every blinking thing.

It's not going to stop though, but I'm going to stand by my anti-communistic/socialistic views - because if you read up on some of the models Engles and Marx used, their little "communities" collapsed - completely.

Communism isn't about the individual - you are completely entrenched in propaganda if you believe that.

Tell all the Cubans fleeing to Florida that Fidel Castro's government is really about the "people."

You're not only clueless, but you're braindead too (assuming you believed it would be best to live in Cuba as opposed to the U.S.)

The fact of the entire matter is ...is that this country was founded as a REPUBLIC - the economy was based as a CAPITALIST, free enterprise system.

If your government runs private business, it cannot be free enterprise.

If your government owns or controls your property, it's no longer private property.

Socrates, you get upset when I called you a communist, yet you admit you're a socialist.

Yet the only difference between the two is the method they go about making their government work; socialism by vote, communist by force.


Most of those countries you mentioned in Europe are members of the European Union.

The implementation of their socialistic rules and laws has caused massive unemployment, as well as sky-high tax rates.

How do you measure France's productivity?

I'm sure the output of workers would be extremely high if the government CONTROLLED the people's means of production and FORCED everyone to obey the government.

You people are fools if you think I'm going to sacrifice myself to the State.

People like you don't belong in America - you belong in China or Cuba.

I'm somewhat new to the world of political theories, and I've gotten quite a mixed definition of socialism. Can't say you're helping. (hehe)

First off, the "ultimate goal" is not to make Americans dependant on government; who would that benefit, and how?

I think the insurance mandates are there so that people who do need them - and trust me, they exist - are guaranteed them. I would guess that certain mandated things would not otherwise be provided, probably because they are more expensive. So... just because you don't need it, you don't want anyone to have it, just because it's more convenient for you? Of course, I'm not an expert on this subject, but they were obviously created for a reason.

And pregnancy isn't always planned. Duh.

And, I have heard it said, if you wait until you can afford kids, you'll never have them. Of course, less people having children might be a good thing - but I don't think that was your point.

You make a lot of generalizations, and I think you need to stop that. For one thing, everyone's yelling at you for it, with good cause. And if it's really what you think, then you need to open your eyes and see the broad spectrum of people out there, in every party.

I sound like I'm trashing your ideas, though. Apologies. You probably have a point, to some degree at any rate; I would have to do a little research on this stuff before I made that sort of judgement.

Oh yeah, and communism isn't evil! It's about giving the government back to the people, and giving everyone an equal opportunity. It simply has never been acheived. If a country is going to become communist it would have to use a much more gradual means. Which is why I don't believe it will happen at any time in the near or even semidistant future.

No government is perfect, Joey. We have to live with what we've got.

I strongly dislike the two-party system that is basically, though not "theoretically" in effect in the US at present. (I also don't like the whole electoral college thing - it was designed when there was virtually no public communication, so the people who really voted were more informed, but now we have television and newspapers and all sorts of stuff, and the average voter can make a good enough decision him/herself. All the system does now is unfairly distribute votes - people who should not win, do.) I believe it is Louisiana that votes again if no one recieves a majority - if that system (I forget the name of it) was more widely used, third, and fourth and fifth and sixth, parties would have more of a chance. As it is, people often vote Republican or Democratic because they think their vote won't count if they don't.

The parties don't represent the ideas of everyone in them; that would be impossible. And then the parties control a lot of what their politicians do; telling them what their platform is, and what to vote for or against. Which just isn't fair.

I believe in more power for the people. They may be ignorant - I wish something could be done about that - but it is their country. Our country, rather. Except I can't vote yet, so I have rather a low sense of political efficacy.

It's too bad people are human, isn't it? Well, someday the race will probably evolve, and it can't get much worse, so it might get a bit better. Uh-oh, I'm about to start arguing with myself. That's always a good cue to end!