So much to do in so little time...
Really? People commit fewer crimes against other people than the government does? I'm not sure how you'd quantify that exactly, and even in spite of that I am not willing to accept this statement without more detailed justification.
I didn't say crimes, I said infringe upon my rights. I don't see my next door neighboor saying I can't own so and so a gun or use so and so a drug. I do see the government saying that. I don't see the school board holidng a gun to my head asking me to pay money for them, but that is what the government does.
I'm saying the formation and usage of military is something governments do efficiently. That is an example of a government being efficient, which is what you asked for.
You've now clarified your request by asking for a government that "is efficient," whereas before you asked for an example of a government "being efficient," which implied that one instance of this would be enough. The newer wording implies that the government must be efficient in general. Now we come to the question of what that means exactly. So what exactly are you saying governments can never be?
Governments can never be exactly what we want them to be like, and if we do get them to that point, it won't last long.
I'm sorry for the miswording of the sentance above, I was shaking pretty badly when I typed it because of personal family issues that I would rather not delve into at this moment.
Current government regulation doesn't completely stop "bad people" from obtaining firearms. Neither does the MPAA for young people seeing inappropriate material, nor the ESRB for the same things. However, all three share a common trait.
THEY MAKE IT HARDER.
If you are SET on murdering someone, laws really won't stand in your way. It isn't like a movie rating or game rating.
"Ima kill you sucka"
"Ugh I wanted Death Gore 2: The Rekilling, but since it is R I guess I can settle for Happy Bunny and pals, it looked fun"
"I don't get why Terminator 3 is rated R, there isn't that much bad stuff in it. I guess I'll watch Nemo instead."
"Since im going to kill this person, I'll go to the ghetto and buy an uzi from an underground dealer."
It makes it harder, but the small amount that it does won't stop criminals.
You make two assumptions in your arguments. (1) All people are "good" until proven otherwise. An extension of this is that all groups of people are considered "good" until proven otherwise. (2) All government is "bad" until proven otherwise. However, the government is made up of people. How can a group of people, already stated to be "good" combine to form an entity that is "bad"? Please show me where this is NOT a contradiction.
So I should assume that all people are bad and government is good?
I don't assume that ALL people are good, I said the general population can be said to be honest etc. That means most people, so your first assumption about mine is wrong. And I never even mentioned groups of people.
Yes, I do assume that all government is bad because I haven't really seen it change anything for the better. Bridges falling down, bridges to nowhere, unconstitutional wars etc. Doesn't really seem that "good" to me. While government has done a few public services, like building roads and the like, I don't feel that justifies Iraq.
And so I don't get hammered for it later, there is no contradiction because to the honest people working in government, filling out paperwork isn't bad, it is just their job and they do it to put food on their families. And there could be "bad" people in government too, I never said all people were good(however, innocent until proven guilty).
Back to the economic discussion. I'm thinking basic college level economics, a combination of Econ 102 and Econ 103 in my university. Regulation leads to a drop in sales, as people are less willing to jump through hoops in order to obtain the good they want most. Companies are in business to make money. They make money when they can sell more units of whatever they're trying to sell. If it's left to the companies to self-regulate, without government interference, MUCH more often than not, they will choose not to self-regulate. The choice to not self-regulate means that people are more willing to buy from that particular business, meaning that the business can push more units, and thus make more money.
Yes, a business's primary goal is to make money, and to make money you need to stay in buisiness. You haven't talked about my boycott-ability theory at all, so I assume it is correct.
Stop me when I say something wrong.
I'd rather not, this is a good discussion.
Now, you can throw certain self-regulation entities such as the MPAA in my face, and I really hope that you do. The MPAA was created in the early 1930s because of pressure from the government to regulate the content of movies, which, at the time, were becoming more and more sensational as far as sex, drugs, and violence go. In 1934, due to STRONG governmental pressure, the MPAA required that all films released have an MPAA seal of approval, or pay a fine to the MPAA. The studios at the time set up the MPAA to avoid governmental regulation, and their own regulation was admittedly much less strict than what the government would have put into place had they NOT self regulated.
I wasn't planning on giving you self-regulating entities, and I still don't plan to.
The problem with the arms industry attempting to self-regulate itself is that it's not an oligopoly. The film industry in the 1930s was controlled about 90% by 5 companies. Those 5 companies controlled the production, distribution, and exhibition of almost every film made during the era (and pretty much ever since). They were vertically and horizontally integrated, and they had positive business dealings with each other. That is to say, they got along well. I don't think that you can say that the entire arms industry is controlled to that extent by such a few number of companies. Nor can they say that they control their products vertically and horizontally. Nor can they say that their relations amongst each other are especially good. Until that kind of control can be established, self-regulation is nearly impossible, and the government must intervene for the safety of its citizens.
Oh im not entirely sure on that, there are quite a few big gun companies that make very good guns. I don't have the time now to research it, but know that that point may not stand with further evidence.
Government must intervene for the safety of its citizens? Like drug laws? If that is a "good" thing to do, then ban smoking and alcohol and all transfat foods. Yay government, keeping us safe from ourselves!
I dunno moza, give me a good example of a large, anarcho-libertarian society that actually works (that means no amish, no island tribes in the middle of the amazon), because I have a feeling that's exactly where you're going with this.
I am not an anarchist, so the rest of your point falls(and aren't the amish STILL around?)
Someone, get this kid a tinfoil hat already.
idk if I am allowed to wear one, even though it protects me from the alein's signals, it could still hurt someone.
I will not reply to this thread anymore until this topic gets its own thread, and if after I get back from league it doesn't, I will make it.
I leave you all with a simple question.
What part of "do not infringe" do you not understand?
-----------------------
Now onto the actual subject;
John McCain should be able to unite the GOP base, I am not quite sure why he hasn't yet.
And I won't even comment on the super-delegates, the entire process with political parties seems crazy to a teenager like me.
o the Dems and Reps in gov't ever ask the question "Is there something that's bad about living there, that makes them want to leave?"? Certainly not enough.