Is there a plan to generate money to build the city?

In order to build a Clean Slate CIty State, we need money. How can this be done?

1. Loans from the world bank
2. Loans/funding from a billionaire.
3. Donations.
4. Our own inventions.

Obama just raised $600m from 3 million people in less than a year based on the strength of the idea that he's real. If ever we generate the idea of a city that is in any way possible, real and needed then we should be at least be able to do the same from the world, and if we can't then we have the wrong ideas.

The difference between us and Obama, however, is our promises have substance!

Aye.

At least Obama is offering new ideas rather than McCain's perpetuation of the same old ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. The same ideas that got us into the Great Depression 80 years ago. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it," and drag the rest of us down with them...again.

What new ideas?

  Essentially the reverse of the crap the Republicans have been feeding us for the last thirty years.  Their flawed trickle down economics policy.  Deregulation of business. Bleeding heart bailouts of businesses.  Tenacious perpetuation of an unwinnable and extremely expensive military plan.  Financial irresponsibility toward accrued debt.  That's a good start.  

The abuses from both parties are severe enough that we should be condemning not only Republicans but Democrats as well. What we need is a major culling of our current bloated bureaucratic bullshit and reestablishment of the principles laid out in the Constitution.

Well, the Republicans made the effort to cull the bloated bureacratic bullshit with respect to financial regulations and look what happened there. Also their harping on the free market is hypocritical. If we truly had a free market things like drugs, prostitution and gambling would be legal.
The constitution is pretty extensive. Could you be more specific as to what principals in the Constitution you are referring too?

But aren't they all the same old ideas? There's nothing new in the republicans letting out the rope and the dems pulling it back in again, that's what they've always done. It was the new bit I was curious about.

You're right, "new ideas" wasn't the correct term. "Real solutions" would be more correct.

Obama is offering real solutions as opposed to McCain and the Republicans serving up the same old dogma that got us into this mess in the first place.

Locksley wrote:

What we need is a major culling of our current bloated bureaucratic bullshit and reestablishment of the principles laid out in the Constitution.

Hence the need for a Clean Slate City State now can we please get off the politics and return to raising money.

[sorry, just had to]We could always call ourselves a bank and get the US government to give us a few billion [/sorry]

Quote :

Well, the Republicans made the effort to cull the bloated bureacratic bullshit with respect to financial regulations and look what happened there. Also their harping on the free market is hypocritical. If we truly had a free market things like drugs, prostitution and gambling would be legal.
The constitution is pretty extensive. Could you be more specific as to what principals in the Constitution you are referring too?

Culling bureaucracy should be an all or nothing thing, the Republicans singled out the financial sector, and yet added more and more to other government institutions.

Re: Constitution: The Constitution is laid out pretty clearly, there are things government should be involved in and things it shouldn't. None of this "living, breathing" crap, that's merely an excuse to ignore the Framers intent.

As for raising money, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, I think Tobias has it right. Loans from the World Bank have been discussed, but I think much of it will come from private sources.

The constitution is just words on paper, it's meaning is entirely dependant on interpretation, which is entirely open to a person's subjective opinion.
For example, 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."
Given a militia can be said to be:
"A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government."
"Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws."
This is a fair description of any territorial gang such as the Bloods or the Crips, thus a perfectly valid interpretation is that the only people allowed to bear arms in the US are members of paramilitary street gangs. Clearly there is more to the constitution than the written page.

Quote :

The constitution is just words on paper, it's meaning is entirely dependant on interpretation, which is entirely open to a person's subjective opinion.

Open to interpretation to a certain extent, and not quite as freely as you suggest.

Quote :

Clearly there is more to the constitution than the written page.

I never said there wasn't. What I was saying is, as is laid out in the 9th amendment, there are things government shouldn't be involved in. I should have been more specific.

lkm wrote:

The constitution is just words on paper, it's meaning is entirely dependant on interpretation, which is entirely open to a person's subjective opinion.
For example, 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."
Given a militia can be said to be:
"A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government."
"Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws."
This is a fair description of any territorial gang such as the Bloods or the Crips, thus a perfectly valid interpretation is that the only people allowed to bear arms in the US are members of paramilitary street gangs. Clearly there is more to the constitution than the written page.

You have to be careful with this stuff. With respect to the second amendment "WELL REGULATED" are words the pro-gun lobby conveniently overlooks. It also only talks about the "KEEPING" and "BEARING" of arms not being infringed upon. There is nothing at all in there about SELLING, TRADING, GIVING AWAY, DONATING, BEQEATHING, etc. We can infringe on that all we want to!
Of course this is where reasonable regulation comes in. An individual who meets the requirements of the ATF form 9 cannot be denied the right to acquire a gun, but if he decides to sell, trade, etc. THEN the regulation can come in. It can be constitutionally legislated that he can ONLY sell, trade, etc. to another individual who meets the ATF requirements and if the gun is lost, stolen, destroyed or whatever he can be required by law to report it. If, and only if, these requirements are met can he relinquish ownership and responsibility of the gun.

Bob, made this statement earlier with respect to my being Pro-gun:

"Pro-gun: But how far? AK-47s. Grenades, Cannons? Atom bombs? If it could be shown with excellent examples, evidence and theory that removal of all guns would reduce the crime rate, including homicide, by 90%, would that change your position? 99%?..."

You can't get FULLY AUTO AK 47s, or grenades unless you meet the requirements of the ATF form "4" which has much more strict rules than the ATF form 9. Semi auto cannons are OK but the SHELLS they fire are considered destructive devices and are regulated under the same NFA Rules that fully automatic weapons are. You can get the hardware for building an atom bomb easily enough but the fissionable material is a totally different story! For verification of all this, review the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Bill was a joke and even if it had been in place BEFORE James Brady was shot it would have had no effect on that incident.

With respect to homicide, actually it has been proven that guns are not the issue, it's social acceptability and violent mindset that affects violence. The Rwandan genocide indicates this point. Although, AK47s and grenades WERE used the most effective method of slaughter was with machetes. Unless you address the violent mindset taking away guns won't help. If you take away guns people will use knives. If you take away knives they will use sticks, if you take away sticks they will use stones and if you take away stones they will use their bare hands. The social acceptability of bullying in our schools led to Columbine not the guns. They were just the best weapons available. Had they not been, Harris and Klebold might have just taken a car and mowed down the football team during a game. The mindset was already there. Needless to say I will need to see empirical evidence myself with respect to the claim of reducing the crime rate!
Granted, there might be a slight reduction in violence, but nothing to the tune of 90%. Sorry, but the conservatives are right about this. If you outlaw guns, then there will be gun smuggling and backstreet machine shops opening up to make Saturday night specials. We couldn't stop alcohol during prohibition and for the same reasons we wouldn't be able to stop gun related crime.

Is government given the right to regulate the sale, trade, etc. of guns on a federal level? Unless I'm mistaken the Constitution makes it pretty clear what the Federal government should be doing, the rest is in the hands of the States.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 did with respect to Title II weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1968 pretty much addresses the rest.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225722.900-fewer-cheap-guns--fewer-criminals-with-guns.html
There is a reason the US homicide rate is appoaches that of the developing world. Guns make murder easy, the easier something is, the more it gets done, without guns murder is a whole lot messier and involved.
However you have a constitution and it must be obeyed.
"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."
As you so rightly point out it states " keep and bear arms" with no mention of any right of their use, purchase, trading, or selling. It also says "arms", not handgun, rifle, shotgun, or machine gun. Clearly the intention is that any citizen member of a militia should, by law, be allowed to possess any weapon produced by the arms trade, be it machine gun, rocket, missile, uacv, or frigate. However anyone atempting to sell, use or give away any of these things, or handguns, or tasers or pepper spray, or lost them or had them stolen is neither keeping nor bearing these arms and can therefore be liable to an extensive prison sentence.
Is this not a fair reading of the 2nd amendment?

"However anyone atempting to sell, use or give away any of these things, or handguns, or tasers or pepper spray, or lost them or had them stolen is neither keeping nor bearing these arms and can therefore be liable to an extensive prison sentence."

Change "arms" to "arms comparable to, but not exceeding, those of the national military,"

Change "use" to "use in an illegal or dangerous manner,"

and I like what you have. Now I understand what the Founding Fathers had to go through! I think me and Bob and our squabbling would have fit right in with them if we had been around back then!! LOL

Firstly, your change to "arms" only seems to exclude nonexistent weapons like laser pulse casnnons and railgun rifles, or am I misunderstanding your intent, as surely any weapon not own by the US armed forces is just a weapon that doesn't yet exist?
Secondly, I would have thought that any non-dangerous use of arms would be rather limited to taking a cruise in your frigate and ploughing a field with you tank, most arms really don't have a none dangerous use.

exactly.

I suppose that if you put your nuke in the boot a of your tank and drove it into Washington D.C, and parked outside a Costco, until or unless it actually detonated you could be quite legally be going shopping for a matching ICBM, to go with your warhead. So unless you were illegally parked it might not be "use in an illegal or dangerous manner".

lkm wrote:

Firstly, your change to "arms" only seems to exclude nonexistent weapons like laser pulse casnnons and railgun rifles, or am I misunderstanding your intent, as surely any weapon not own by the US armed forces is just a weapon that doesn't yet exist?
Secondly, I would have thought that any non-dangerous use of arms would be rather limited to taking a cruise in your frigate and ploughing a field with you tank, most arms really don't have a none dangerous use.

You misunderstand my intent. I'm not refering to non-existent weapons I'm referring to comparable weapons to what our military has, and by no means without proper screening via the National Firearms Act. My change to "arms" addresses the primary reason the second amendment was written in the first place: Security of a FREE state. To limit the citizens to say, muskets, when the military is using full-auto machine guns, would clearly leave the citizens at a disadvantage with respect to defending their freedom. Just because tyranny hasn't happened (although this last administration has come close) doesn't mean it can't.

I didn't say dangerous use, I said "use in an illegal or dangerous manner." For example, despite my aversion to it, hunting. Two more examples are target shooting, and self defense. Dangerous and iilegal use would be shooting in the air, armed robbery, murder.

My point was that the US military is the a trillion dollar operation and any arms technology not employed in it either doesn't exist yet or is a russian state secret, so limiting arms ownership to anything used by the US military is no limitation at all, so what is the point of it?
"use in an illegal or dangerous manner."
I don't know about you, but I would parse that as use in an illegal manner or use in a dangerous manner, so is the latter not dangerous use? I would have thought hunting was inherently dangerous to the animal being hunted, that self-defence was inherently dangerous to your attacker and that the first rule of target shooting gun safety is that guns are inherently dangerous. Isn't that what killed the eight year old with the uzi at the gun fair last month?
Besides, as I pointed out, the 2nd amendment makes no allowance for any sort of use of the arms you're allowed to keep.

The idea of the second amendment is so citizens can protect themselves against tyranny. Had George III outlawed guns in the colonies, then there never would have been a revolution. We've also seen how some presidents can be corrupted by their position and abuse their power, and of course let's not forget Hitler.
With respect to the military, if the standard firearm for an infantry soldier is the M16, then a civilian, WHO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS BY LAW, should be able to keep and bear a comparable weapon. I am not for one second talking about hypothetical future weapons, and I don't know where you got that idea from. I'm talking about actual weapons in use today.
It is LEGAL to hunt in the US. Two hundred years ago there were many citizens who made a living by hunting. That was how they survived. Today, there is a problem with overpopulation of various animals, and it is necessary to thin the herds so they don't starve to death. It is a necessary evil to thin the herds down to a particular fraction so that those left have enough food, otherwise a great many more, maybe all, would die a long, slow death through starvation. I don't deny that this problem has been created by man, but it at least it is a way of offsetting the problem. I don't for one second agree with hunting personally, but in a way it is just perpetuating nature where man is adopting the role of other predators whose numbers have also been depleted.
I think our definitions of "legal and dangerous" might be different. In my previous post I've already explained my definition. What is your definition?

I always thought the 2nd amendment was legislative pork to overcome state fears that any federal government would inevitable form a standing army of such strength that no state could stand against it and state rights would be swept away. At least that's what I read on Wikipedia. Well it did and they were.
With regards to the military I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. When you said
"comparable weapons to what our military has", I thought you meant weapons comparable to those owned and or operated by the the United States military, not weapons comparable to those carried by selected poorly armed infantry.
Clearly though the US military has 280 ships, 10000 aircraft, 450 icbm's and 9000 tanks, a poorly armed infantryman will have none of these and thus you weren't intending for the civilian population to stand a chance against the army, just each other.
What are "THE REQUIREMENTS BY LAW"? The 2nd amendment only restricts keeping and baring to people, short of arguing dogs or black people (not real people according to the bill of rights) can't have guns what more can be added?
I define a legal act as one carried out in keeping with the laws of the land.
I define a dangerous act as one that imparts abnormally greater risk to life or limb to those within it's sphere.
Hunting may be legal, but it is clearly dangerous to the animal being hunting, if you have deemed use in a dangerous manner to be verboten then hunting must be verboten. If not then you need to redraft.
To be clear, my personal view point is that mass gun ownership is the definition of insanity, that it along with capital punishment and healthcare are the three biggest causes for distrust and wariness of America. Together they comprise the evidence that the US is just not part of the civilised world.
My personal belief is that no country can be helpfully guide by a document written for political expediency and predating the industrial revolution. However if you have a law, it must be followed and if in so doing you discover it to be absurd then perhaps you can think about changing it.

It's a funny thing. Before I bought my first gun my point of view was quite similar to yours, but after buying it my eyes just seemed to open up to a different aspect of the world. I think you are looking at the slippery slope with respect to this issue. There have been abuses and horror stories on both sides, and I consider keeping and bearing arms to be OK as long as strict regulations and laws are established. Can we prevent all gun related crimes? Of course not, but we can minimize them and establish some accountability which isn't in place at the present time.
I respect your point of veiw with respect to hunting. The idea of killing an animal makes my stomach turn, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my morality upon others, which is why I have such disdain for the religious right. One of the primary requirements of a free society is tolerance. Of course certain arbitrary rules need to be established in the interest of the whole, but essentially it boils down to permissiveness with responsibility, and that most definitely should apply to guns.

I think you misunderstand me, I was argueing from the perspective of US law, playing devil's advocate as it were. I was merely applying your precepts to the legal position I had already set out.
AS I said however, personally, I don't believe a word of it. Mass gun ownership is insanity, the constitution is a noose around America's neck and hunting for food is a fundamental element of human nature.
The abuses and horrors committed by the madman without a gun are always dwarfed by those commited by the madman with the guns, which again are dwarfed by the dailly holocaust committed by the sane people with guns.

Well, I guess we are at another idealogical impasse I feel the same way about guns as I do about prostitution and drugs: Permissiveness with responsibility, and I do feel that we need tougher laws and regulations with respect to guns, but not prohibition of them.
As for mass gun ownership being insanity, you might want to ask holocaust survivors how they feel , because I have little doubt they would have a LOT to say about that.

Anyway, I have a question that I haven't been able to find an answer for. If the formula for kinetic energy is
KE = 1/2mv^2, why is it
E = mc^2 and not E = 1/2mc^2?

Anybody?

because the concepts are totally separate.

Ah, Reductio ad Hitlerum, godwin's law strikes again.
If I were to engage with it I might say Warsaw ghetto, but it's entirely irrelivent anyway.
How about in return I call American Civil War.

Or you could just employ Dodd's corollary.

Give me a break! Like I'm the only one who has used Nazi history as a reference! As for the American Civil War that could be another Godwinian reference as well.
The fact is that you are trying to hold on to the belief that guns are the root of all evil. You're as bad as those Temperance jerks or these Partnership for a Drug Free America morons. You are just maintaining a bigotted prejudice towards guns the way these other groups do about alcohol and drugs. Alcohol and drugs are mindless chemicals, not "cunning, baffling and powerful" as those twelve-steppers want to assert, and a gun is nothing more than a mindless chunk of metal.
You can dismiss the confiscation of guns and their potential impact on the Holocaust all you want to, but I can guarantee that Israel will never disarm themselves again after that chapter in their history.

As for the Civil War, that's what the victors called it. As for the South, they refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression, just like the British might refer to the Revolutionary War as Colonial High Treason. Potato, potahto.
This is why I'm pro-gun as well as pro-legalization of drugs, prostitution and gambling. Despite the fact that these are issues at different ends of the political spectrum, the same logic applies. Proper education, regulation and discipline are what is the issue, not the item in question itself.

If you were the first there wouldn't be term for it, and if it was every a good idea it wouldn't be derogatory.
I don't believe guns are the root of all evil, I don't even believe they are evil, I rather believe they are indeed chunks of mindless metal, chunks of metal in shape of a tool. Because that is all a gun is, a tool. A highly effective tool for instantly killing another human being on the spur of the moment, without thought, hesitation or reflection. Now given that this is a tool who's very purpose is illegal under all but the most unlikely of circumstances, what is the justification for there being a gun for every man woman and child in America? Handguns make unpremeditated homicide easier to occur, they enable the huge homicide rate that the US suffers under, the problem is complex but they are definitely part of the problem and not the solution.

Again with the Nazis, really I'm almost speechless, I'd point out Israel didn't exist during the second world war, but what would be the point?

My point exactly. The south lost. They had their full second amendment rights to protect them from subjugation under federal authority, and yet they lost the war, just as much as they would have if guns had been scarce and strictly controlled, the only difference being that it wouldn't have killed two percent of the US population.
The difference is that drugs, prostitution and gambling alll (hopefully) involve consenting adults, where as nobody consents to being shot.

First when I was referring to Godwinian arguments I was referring to other people on this forum using those references as well as me. I'm sure that i can go back and find a few posts by you that use godwinian references.

Second, I know Israel didn't exist before WWII!! It was because of the holocaust that they made sure they had a strong military to prevent anything like that happening again! I'm speechless that you don't even want to see my point!

The South lost because the war deteriorated into a war of attrition. They had superior training, superior leadership, superior equipment but they did not have superior war making potential. If a European power had stepped in on the side of the South, as the French did during the Revolutionary
War, the outcome would in all likelyhood would have been different.
Nobody consents to being stabbed, beaten, run over, poisoned, etc. and yet that still goes on. The consent comes in the perpetrator choosing to use a gun to commit assault. That is the kind illegal and dangerous act that I keep reiterating but you keep ignoring. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the responsibility part of my proposal leaves ME speechless.
More people die in alcohol related motor vehicle accidents that from gunshot wounds, but I am not advocating banning alcohol or cars because they are not the issue. It's the irresponsibility of the individual that is the problem not the car or the booze, OR the gun, but clearly I'm wasting my time reasoning with you. You've formed your prejudice and you don't want to examine the true common denominator of this issue.

Never. I've called it once, but never, ever, decended to letting loose a cry of NAZIS!!!!!

"Israel will never disarm themselves again"
This really implies that you thought otherwise. Israel has been on a permament war footing since its founding, it has a draft, and such reservists may own one handgun, along with a restricted list of other profesionals, as I understand it. Basically gun ownership is restricted to those professionally trained and part of the war effort. though I could easily be wrong.
As I said, I'm trying really hard to not engage with your "point" because it's stupi9d, facile and deeply insulting to the 7 million people who were put to death. In effect what you're saying is they only died because they didn't fight back. Which is just, wrong, so very, very wrong.

I understood that the south lost because it had the money but the North had the manufacturing base. The North could mass produce Springfield rifles while the south had to buy and smuggle in enfields. Obviously, if someone else had offered to fight the war for them, the outcome might have been different, but then as much as Europe liked the South's money and cotton, they prefered the north's money, grain and lack of evilness.

"Nobody consents to being stabbed, beaten, run over, poisoned, etc. and yet that still goes on. The consent comes in the perpetrator choosing to use a gun to commit assault. That is the kind illegal and dangerous act that I keep reiterating but you keep ignoring. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the responsibility part of my proposal leaves ME speechless. "

Ok, I really, honestly, have no idea what you are trying to say here. Could you explain a little, perhaps slowly?

It was my understanding that a DUI was a misdemeanor and vehicular manslaughter a felony, i.e. to follow your analogy, handguns are illegal, using one very illegal. That sounds about right.
What is the true common denominator then?
Or are you going to say irresponsible individuals and bring us back to coerced sterilization?

You need to be very careful with your words. I NEVER for once said that seven million Jews died because they DIDN'T fight back but because they COULDN'T fight back! HOW DARE YOU! First you trivialize their deaths because you don't want to acknowledge that citizens need to be able to protect themselves against tyranny, then you twist my words around trying to make it sound like I'm calling them a bunch of cowards! HOW DARE YOU!
As for the Civil War, "lack of evilness?" What kind of crap is that? "Evilness" had nothig to do with it. They had no ethical problem trading with the South, it was the blockade that hindered trade.
You raised the point about "nobody consents to being shot." I raised the point that "nobody consents to being stabbed beaten, run over, poisoned, etc." It's violence pure and simple. The only difference is the weapon. The mindset stays the same.
I can't believe some of your warped logic! "It was my understanding that a DUI was a misdemeanor and vehicular manslaughter a felony, i.e. to follow your analogy, handguns are illegal, using one very illegal. That sounds about right." Driving under the influence does NOT equate to carrying a handgun UNLESS the person does not have a carry permit. Then it is the equivalent of driving without a license. What "sounds about right?"
The true common denominator is the violent mindset, but I'm clearly wasting my time explaining that to you AGAIN.
As for the coerced sterilization crap, that is too ridiculous to respond to.

And breath...
Can we pleaaase stop with the NAZI argument, for the fourth time, it can never lead anywhere good.
"I NEVER for once said that seven million Jews died because they DIDN'T fight back but because they COULDN'T fight back!"
The latter implies the former, which is just historically inaccurate, because many did fight back, along with many others. Resistence movements were common across Europe, but then I'm sure you know this. People did fight, and they did die, and forgetting that fact, is forgetting that sacrifice. I just don't feel this is a suitable or relavent to the topic at hand. So please, again can we just move on from this.

Evilness is my word, I apologise if it trivialised a barbaric trade.
My point was that slavery had been abolished in Britain and France for decades and so fundamentally, all things being equal they agreed with the north over the south. As for trade, business and ethics rarely meet.

"This is why I'm pro-gun as well as pro-legalization of drugs, prostitution and gambling"
"The difference is that drugs, prostitution and gambling alll (hopefully) involve consenting adults, where as nobody consents to being shot."
I was refering to the common liberal position regarding drugs, prostitution and gambling that though often criminalized they are activities that need only be deleterious to the individuals involved, and that people should be free to do things that are bad for them, as long as it doesn't harm anybody else. My point was that while it is perfectly plausible for someone to consent to prostitution as a living or to indulge in drugs or gambling, the same could not be said for gun violence thus guns could not be covered by the same liberalization argument. I assumed that was the argument that you were refering to or at least would understand my meaning. I apologise if it was otherwise.

"More people die in alcohol related motor vehicle accidents that from gunshot wounds, but I am not advocating banning alcohol or cars because they are not the issue."

"I can't believe some of your warped logic! "It was my understanding that a DUI was a misdemeanor and vehicular manslaughter a felony, i.e. to follow your analogy, handguns are illegal, using one very illegal. That sounds about right." Driving under the influence does NOT equate to carrying a handgun UNLESS the person does not have a carry permit. Then it is the equivalent of driving without a license. What "sounds about right?"

I was merely following on from your DUI RTA analogy. As you say, cars are not illegal, alcohol is not illegal, but the combination actually is illegal in most parts of the world, including your own. Thus in "alcohol related motor vehicle accidents" the weapon is DUI and the crime is vehicular manslaughter, my point being that in your own analogy both the weapon and crime are in fact illegal. if one was then to apply your analogy to handguns that would make the handgun, as the weapon, illegal also, that was the further point I as making. I am sorry if I wasn't clear in my meaning.
Ok, so the common denominator is the violent mindset, could you perhaps elaborate on what precisely you mean by that, and what exactly you see as being possibly done to combat it?
I unreservedly apolgise for the sterilzation comment, I had mean spiritedly anticipated a return to a discussion of an underclass, and I dreaded the return of temporary sterilization debate from earlier.

Let's face it: You need to agree to disagree, because you are both right, and you are both wrong.

Basically, the question that is being asked here is "How many lives is freedom worth?" The answer to that question is extremely difficult, in fact it is the question that plagues every modern society. Yes, guns make it easier to kill people, and yes, they can also be used to overthrow a tyrannical government.

I find that the best way to overcome Godwin's law is by calling people's bluff: Actually investigate the issue at hand to see if it holds up. In this case, the Jews were outnumbered anyway, and no amount of guns would have stopped the Nazi's and the SS guards.

But returning to the bigger question- How many lives is freedom worth- If you want to argue, argue about that.

Well that presuposes that there is no freedom without guns. The majority of the free world disagree with that. I would think.

The point in this case was the freedom to own guns, which by definition is a freedom, vs the safety of outlawing guns. In fact, i agree with you, but I dislike arguments that go nowhere.

OK, first the second amendment is there for a reason. As I stated before and was ignored it was to allow citizens to protect themselves against tyranny. You don't like Godwinian references, even if they have validity, fine. How about the Wars of Scottish Independence. Don't you dare dismiss them as being too far in the past or not involving firearms, because they were fought with comparable weapons which goes back to my modifier in my post of 22.11. Power corrupts and abuse of power leads to tyranny and oppression of people. Fine, the hell with Godwin, let's talk about the wonderful history of the British Empire and their oppression of native peoples, and again don't you dare trivialize it or deflect it. The US learned from the example of its parent empire in how to conquer a land and it's people by using superior firepower. Yeah, you British are such noble, peaceful people! LOL! It's because of the abuses of power by Britain that the Bill of Rights was written into the Constitution. The founding Fathers saw the actions that were taken in order to oppress the colonists and they wanted to prevent this kind of tyranny from happening within their new government. The Bill of Rights is not some group of whimsical ideals, along with the seperation of powers and other check and balances, they were written to prevent abuses of power and tyranny within this new government based on actual events from the history of their parent, the British Empire.
Again, repeating myself, I don't for one second believe that their should not be responsibilities that go along with rights but without the Bill of Rights the US would have ended up being a dictatorship on many occasions. Again don't you dare trivialize the actions of past presidential administrations. Just look at our most recent President. Violations of citizen's first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh amendment rights "in the interest of national security." Yeah, with a nut-job like Bush infringing on these other rights, I'm going to voluntarily relinquish my second amendment right!

You know, considering some of the ridiculous debates that I've gotten into on this forum, where people care more about winning than coming to some kind of reasonable consensus, ignoring points because the can't or won't acknowledge their validity, the constant necessity to repeat myself because of this, the nitpicking about a single sentence in an attempt to discount an entire idea, dismissing practicality and reality for idealism, I realize now that there is no chance of establishing a Clean Slate Society. If it cannot be accepted that mankind has bad as well as good, then there is no way to make rules and laws to minimize abuses and anti-social activities. I would LOVE for the world to be a wonderful, Utopian fairy tale place where all the liberal ideals would thrive. In fact that is what Mankind should strive for, but sadly this is just not realistic. Regulation and checks and balances are necessary to maintain a civilized and relatively free society. Anarchists and libertarians just cannot grasp the basic reality of human nature that Man is not basically good or evil, but neutral and will do what he can to get his own selfish needs met. For this reason Man must have his selfish needs met but MODERATELY regulated so that the choices he makes do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. Until the idealistic attitudes are thrown out and realistic thinking is implemented the can be no possibility of a Clean Slate Society becoming a reality.
The conservatives try to impose an unrealistic standard upon society that they themselves can't live up to. The liberals on the other hand want unconditional freedoms but refuse to accept the social responsibilities that go along with them. You can hate guns, REVERSIBLE (another word that gets conveniently omitted) sterilization, population control and any other "imposed responsibility" concepts I have presented, but it doesn't change the fact that these are going to be necessary subjects to address in a Clean Slate Society, and until you stop burying your head in the sand and look to history to see what has worked and what hasn't, and be willing to acknowledge that idealism must at least be tempered with realism, you cannot have a Clean Slate Society.
The idea of constructive discussion to address issues and draw rational conclusions is fine by me, but to argue idealogies and not be willing to accept, however reluctantly, the reality of an issue is a waste of time. These arguments have gotten tiring, tedious and completely unproductive and if this is what would go on in a Clean Slate Society, then clearly it would be doomed before it could even be started. Enjoy your discussions, but I'm through with this. This is a waste of my time.

Davamanra,

Your input in the various discussions we've had has been a real asset. No one is going to agree with everything you say, but when there are disagreements, I would hope that we all can respond constructively and civilly.

Let me also add that this is not the typical online forum. The issues and ideas that are discussed here are light years ahead of most, and I would hope our manners would reflect that. My sincere apologies if what I have said may have caused any bad feelings.

That said, I hope you will reconsider your decision.[/img]

I would like to second Locksley. I would have replied earlier, but I could not think of anything nearly so relevant and well stated.

I also think that, as we are all one (very) small community (6 or 7 members with posts), I think we should be able to make the decision to not waste our time discussing modern american, european, or other politics except for their relation to the CS.

Has anyone checked out the Libertarian Ocean Colonies? The idea presented by their proponents seems to be 'have lot's of little micronations, each with different rules, so people can find the one that suits them'. Of course, a centeral governing body would be needed to ensure that one overiding right was respected - the right to emigrate to another micronation, or start their own - as well as the other rights, as laid out in the universal decleration of human rights (a document that has been completely ignored by every nation in the world, despite signing it) with modifications to ensure that the rights of 'minors' and children are respected, and to also ensure that one micronation doesn't begin to dominate others. Such an idea, if put into practice, would whittle down the numbers of micronations through natural selection, until only systems that work would remain. My prediction? Communism would work - nay, flourish - as it wouldn't be in a large nation, and people who don't like it could leave and those who like it could enter. Capitalism may still work, with seperate micronations ending up trading with each other, but whether it would still exist in its current state would be debatable. We may even see new nations appearing. But if anyone gets beaten up or shot... well, they chose to live in such a place, they essentially consented to it. As I said about modifiying the decleration of human rights to include children, a system would have to be set up to remove children (here defined as those lacking the capability to make rational descisions [such a wide sweeping term]) from dangerous siuations like that.

Quote :

My prediction? Communism would work - nay, flourish - as it wouldn't be in a large nation, and people who don't like it could leave and those who like it could enter. Capitalism may still work, with seperate micronations ending up trading with each other, but whether it would still exist in its current state would be debatable.

Depending on the size of the nations, something more along the lines of "capitalism with a heart" (we're talking on a community level) would probably be the most common. What I mean is free trade between the nations, but because of the small size and relative isolation (I'm assuming?) of each individual micronation, it would be in everyone's best interest to help their neighbors. They wouldn't be required to help, as would be the case in a communist society, but an attitude of generosity would probably develop over time.[/u]

Examples of how isolated communities might develop are available in the hundreds of very isolated coastal villages in Newfoundland. These villages were extremely isolated from the 18th century well into the middle of the 20th century. In 1965, for instance, the village of L’Anse aux Meadows had no roads, no train, no air access, no radio and no television. Transportation into and out of the village was exclusively by boat (a dangerous trip across part of the North Atlantic), or, in the winter, dog sled.

There were hundreds of such villages, and we have accurate portrayals of them in novels and films such as Shipping News and Random Passage, as well as the testimony of living people, voluminous documentation, photography and archaeology. These villages frequently consisted of a small number of families.

I don’t know anything about most of these villages, but the few with which I am familiar exhibited a great deal of economic cooperation and collaboration, but also a considerable degree of rivalry over the small amount of arable land, other agriculture resources, and fishing and seal hunting opportunities. Private property was very much a respected and relevant concept, as was reaping the benefits of one’s own work.

Neither communist nor entirely capitalist.

Bob

Did the system work? Judging by your presentation, it sems it did.

Not everyone would like that, though.

The samller the government, the easier it is to overthrow.

I would suggest a Union of small microstates, such as America was intended to be.