Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:08:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
802 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > > Actually the crime rate differnce has nothing to do with gun control. Most of
> > > the studies I have seen actually suggest the crime rate went up after the main
> > > gun control laws were put into effect in Canada. The crime rate in Canada has
> > > always been lower even when the availability of guns was comparable to that in
> > > the U.S. The only thing gun control accomplishes is preventing you from
> > > defending yourself against the tyranny of the Government.
> >
> > À la Unabomber? Or McVeigh? Or that guy in Ruby Ridge? Or David Khoresh? Or
> > 'Michigan Militia'? Or?...
>
> Considering no one knows why these people did what they did (aside from what the
> government tells us,) I can not say.
*Ahem*
They did what they did because they had the means to do it. Read, guns.
I failed to present in the previous examples a doubt that remains in my mind: if
the purpose of gun ownership is protection agains the abuses of the government,
how come they were never used for that purpose? Is it possible that to the
average citizen, who has only anecdotal interest in politics (when TV makes a
big case about some new law, for instance), the guns have long lost their
original purpose and become more like an appliance?
The creepy thing for me is that too many folks get carried away with their guns
and start feeling that is the only way to solve their issues with the rest of us
humans... as petty as they may be. And yet, noone can have a plausible reason
for armed uprising against the goverment.
Unless, of course, there is a real fear that you guys become a monarchy, or,
even worse, a *centralized* state?
;-)
> > > > And Canada has free health care for everyone.
> > >
> > > Even though its quality while still excellent on a global average is now
> > > proportionately less than it was prior to becoming free for everyone.
> >
> > What do you base this assertion on?
> > (Really, I'm curious about it)
>
> 10-12 years ago Canadian medical services and eqipment was equal or greater than
> that of the US. Today they are a decade behind. Seriously, when has any
> government actually improved something by taking it over?
US Government in WW1, with trains? They wouldn't have worked properly otherwise,
or so it is argued. And remember Mussolini's great deed of making the trains run
in time!
I do understand why you claim that, what I probably would not do is such a large
generalization. I don't dislike {all} state monopolies, some are actually handy
- one example that comes to mind is my experience with postal services: the more
privatized they get, the worse become the service and the pricing...
> Besides its not even
> free, Canadians are paying for it through taxes. The only differnce is that the
> cost is deferred over everyone instead of those actually using the services. I
> still don't see how that is considered 'fair'.
I pay taxes that keep courthouses running; I've never used one. Am I being
ripped off? In my view, I am not; of course I tend to extrapolate from this
example to whatever else I consider a social service.
I pay a "plane subsidy" (in taxes) so that the 300 residents in a remote
atlantic island can have the same access as I have to a doctor. Is that fair? I
think it is - their access to ANY form of healthcare, free or not, is a right.
And that right has to be accessible to ALL the citizens in the same way, even if
I have to pay extra to level things up. As you can certainly see, it's a service
which I won't likely be using, but I am certainly paying for it.
As you can see, that argument of "not using" is not perfect. Not to mention that
feeling of solidarity that is common to practically all major religions; one is
likely to infer "do unto others what you would like them to do unto you" from
its negative conterpart, and similarly in other creeds.
> > > > And a much less terrible >poverty rate than in US.
> > >
> > > Nevermind that those living in poverty in the US are living like kings compared
> > > to most of the world.
> >
> > "Most". Is that comparison valid towards Canada? :-)
>
> Doubtful, but why does not being able to buy a DVD player for your TV warrent
> sympathy anyway?
I don't know if that is what I reduce poverty to (not being able to buy "x"),
but since you chose to go that way... are there figures regarding the average
income of a "poor" family in the USA? And (being preciosist here :-) the
standard deviation of such figures?
If some can't afford a DVD, some others can't afford to live in places with
proper air or access to green spaces - in a sense, I think those are also
indicators of poverty (they're probably included in some index of human
development, but it's not really the point)
> > > > And true democraty too.
> > >
> > > So the US isn't even supposed to be a democracy were are supposed to be a
> > > representative republic.
> >
> > Ok. Though you do adhere to "democratic principles"... That's good, right? > :-)
>
> In the current (as of 6/2003) definition, yes.
See, not everything is rotten! ;-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
161 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
|
|
|
|
