Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:45:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
990 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm sorta me-tooing, but hey, why not?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > Most of the "major news stories" have been geared to distract the average
> > mindless American into thinking they need the federal Government.
>
> In fact, they do need the Federal government, and so do you. How secure
> would the commercial shipping infrastructure be if our borders were not secure?
And our borders aren't 100% secure--and see what problems
that wreaks? Imagine if we were fully balkanized--just look
at the operation of the US under the Articles of Confederation
if you want to see the problems inherent in too loose a union.
> How secure would US commerce be without the backing of the
> full-faith-and-credit of the US Federal Reserve? How well could we resist
> enemy incursions onto US soil without the Federal body known as the US Armed
> Forces? How much abuse would stock brokers inflict upon innocent investors
> without the oversight of the Securites Exchange Commission?
If you look at a case like Enron, which went to some pretty
severe lengths to escape oversight, you begin to see where
regulation protects the investor, the economy, and in the end,
the very businesses struggling against them. And, as with Y2K
(mentioned below), when things work we don't notice it. We
notice the failures, and it's very easy to extrapolate from
that to get the impression that there's a systemic failure.
There isn't.
> I imagine you'll point to 9/11 as an example of the failure of the armed
> forces, but before you do, please recall that privately-owned jets were used in
> the bombings.
And what's more, had those private jets been up to the standards
the FAA had demanded (and that private industry had balked at!)--
9/11 might have been much less deadly, or may have failed altogether.
The Federal government, for all of its problems, is meant to be the
voice and will of the people--even when that steps on the toes of
some groups of people within the country. It's a system-wide check
against private interests (again, despite the amount of power that
PACs try to wield--that's precisely why they try so hard to wield
it).
> > The Y2K farce was a good example of that.
>
> Which farce, exactly? The finance industry was well-prepared before the
> beginning of 1999. The airline industry had run tests many months in advance,
> with no alarms. The rail industry had likewise conducted tests that showed no
> significant problems to be expected on 1/1/0. The only fuss I heard was from
> the so-called liberal news media, and even that was more like a lingering joke
> than some pernicious guvmint plot to sap and impurify all of our precious
> bodily fluids...
And, of course, everyone says that Y2K was overblown, that it was
nothing, et cetera, et cetera, but we'll never know--because so much
work and time were put into preventing trouble. And you know what?
Trouble was almost completely prevented. I'd call that a massive
success in spite of procrastination, not a "non-story." But that
would be dealing in counterfactuals.
> > -Mike Petrucelli (I wonder, when the second civil war comes will there be
> > enough patriots to defend our liberty?)
>
> First I must require you to define "civil war," "enough," "patriots,"
> "defend," and "liberty." After you've done that, I'll see about giving you an
> answer.
Heh. And, of course, define "our" too. If you're willing to give
up the benefits of a strong federal government, go right ahead--
but you'll find it very hard to get Internet access in Afghanistan
these days. If you live anywhere outside Western Europe and
North America, and you'll very quickly realize that you're living
in an amazingly free and libertine society by comparison.
Yes, the Federal government needs fixing, but hasn't it always?
Hasn't everything? Isn't that what public debate is for? The only
time the system fails is when people decide to give up on it.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) While Y2K deserved much of the concern raised, it really was overblown. I don't remember how many times I had to re-explain exactly what the Y2K exposure of our product was, and it was a minor problem in that the next time the machine booted (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Why not indeed? Beats the heck out of butting in on a technicality while skirting the main issue, which is what I'm doing! (...) Many who live elsewhere do regard ours as an amazingly libertine society (isn't that one of the reasons they hate (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) In fact, they do need the Federal government, and so do you. How secure would the commercial shipping infrastructure be if our borders were not secure? How secure would US commerce be without the backing of the full-faith-and-credit of the US (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
