I’ve heard of this sci-fi novel over the years, but never read it. Finally I saw that a graphic novelization of it is available for free online here:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn
In short it is an alternate history/alternate reality story with two separate and divergent worlds of 1985. The first world features a United States that is a far-leftists wet dream… cars are virtually impossible to obtain, it’s illegal to make a profit, guns are not allowed the citizens, the government is in complete control. In the other world, where the bulk of the story takes place, the history of the US went quite a bit different, starting with the Declaration but really picking up at the Whiskey Rebellion. The result is that by this worlds 1985, a true “libertarian” world has come to pass in North America. It’s the sort of place both Heinlein and Rand would have found most entertaining.
As with Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” the Message can get a little heavy at times. Perhaps the novel thinned it out a little, dunno. But even so, it’s an entertaining romp, well illustrated… and thoroughly depressing. Not because what they describe is dystopic (well, the first world we see certainly is), but because as you read it, you realize that such a world just might be possible… but it ain’t *our* world. Our world is far closer to the dystopia shown at the beginning
The central character is a cop from the first world, accidentally cast into the second. He’s a decent guy, but he’s lived his life in a culture with certain assumptions that clash with the assumptions of the other. For instance, in his world the regular peons aren’t allowed guns; in the second world, *everyone* walks around armed. Here’s where the Message hits, and hits hard. But still… can you *really* argue with any of the points being made here?
Go forth and read it. if you like it, buy a paper copy. In any event, suggest it to your liberal/anti-gun friends.
“Anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible: ‘I won’t trust you until you render yourself harmless.'”
41 Responses to “The Probability Broach”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As it happens, I myself am a ‘far-leftist’ who agrees completely with all the points made above. Gun rights and the practicality and desirability of SDI have been since childhood the two major points on which I disagree utterly with ‘my’ side. Or with those who claim to speak for it, anyway. I suspect folks like me are a bit more numerous than either the ‘mainstream’ media, or its flipside (once called ‘fringe’) acknowledge. My closest Republican friend has described me as a [John] ‘Kennedy liberal’ — i.e., a Democrat who believes in a strong defense. Comments?
> I myself am a ‘far-leftist’ who agrees completely with all the points made above
Well, now, ask yourself this, then: if you agree with the points made above, what makes you a “far leftist?” Do you feel that you are owed the product of the labor of others? Do you agree with your own right to self defense, but disagree with it for others? Because there’s a bit of a disconnect. A general descritptor of “left” is that they feel that “the poor/sick/elderly” (or some other group of unfortunate schmoes) need to be taken care of by government, at governmnet expense, and paid for at gun point by taxpayers. If you *don’t* agree with that… then how are you “left?”If you *do* agree with that, how does that square with your agreeing with “I’m self sufficient, I’ll never burden others?”
Scott:Thanks for the link! Damn I’ve missed this book…
As noted the “message” CAN get a little heavy but I enjoyed the book as a
good read along with the sequel, (you did know there is one right? :o) “The Venus Belt” though over the years I’ve come to realize as I’ve considered the Libertarian agenda that while appealing to my more freedom loving side the more practical side of my brain keeps pointing out that the party as a whole has no real plan on how to get from point A (where we are now with government, social policy, and current political reality) to point B (the Libertarian Utopia as found in the book/comic) without having to totally de-construct the current set up and rebuild from scratch. Which needless to say would cause more than ‘minor’ issues economically, politically, and socially. :o)
There is of course also the point that the ‘time-line’ given for the TPB world ignores some rather heavy and significant OTHER historical incidents and social reasons as to why things turned out the way they did in “this” world, or the “other” dystopian world as it was obvious at the time that it’s a ‘worst-case’ projection of where a lot of Libertarian’s expected us to be by the mid-to-late 80s :o)
I recall that I was rather ‘annoyed’ that while TPB showed a progressive frontier moving out into space, the then Presidential candidate for the Libertarian party had announced that he planned to break up NASA as an agency, relegating the centers back to scientific and technology research roles. (Ok, not so bad an idea :o) But the part that really put me off enough to step back and overview the Libertarian party and its approach to government was their plan to sell off all NASA equipment, facilities not related to specific research centers and all launch facilities and infrastructure to the “highest-bidder” with the automatic assumption that this would be U.S. private enterprise.
It was clear even then and even with those with a strong anti-NASA bias that there was no possible way that U.S. private sector launch providers would have been able to afford to absorb the costs of the government supported launch infrastructure unless the “plan” let the military ‘buy’ it and used it to support their launch needs. (I don’t recall the exact stand on the military and military budget but I DO recall that I was less than thrilled at the Libertarian overall position and plans for anything beyond PERSONAL defense issues :o)
All and all I loved the characters and setting for both novels, but they highly contrast the Libertarian “ideals” against a highly un-likable (even for most “leftist” politically orientated folks I’ve ever discussed the books with) political system designed to present the Libertarian case in its best light with few to no flaws. In fact, (as the author states in the introduction of the graphic novel/web-comic) the book was specifically written to spread the knowledge and ideas of the Libertarian party without regard to actual historical social, and political reality.
The Libertarian political agenda has to me always relied upon an equation for implimentation that requires “and-then-a-miracle-occurs” be the support piller of transition from the current (or past) political reality to their Utopia. Historically business and individuals are NOT cooperative where resources and profit are involved and rare is the time that either actually ‘consider’ long-term ramifications of their actions over short-term profit and reward. Doing otherwise is a TRAINED behaviour people do not naturally care about anyone who is ‘outside’ their family, clan/social unit.
The Libertarian party specifically and most Libertraians I’ve talked to all have a basic assumption that “government” is bad and all else is “good” and all that is needed is to replace “government” with “individual responsibility” (and several other terms, ideals, and instincts that are assumed to be inherient in ‘freedom-loving-peoples :o) and all will be right with the world.
But they can never show how to GET there! I’ve seen Libertarian candidates elected to office in various places, but they rarely last more than one term for various reasons the most often because at some point they either have to ‘comprimise’ on their agenda in order to successfully work with the other parties and individuals at their level of government or they ‘push’ their agenda and end up being frozen out of policy making at their level of government.
To this end the Libertarian party itself is radically changing and (to me and Libertarian’s I’ve talked to it seems at any rate) growing desperate to move into the upper levels of of government. With the presentation of Bob Barr as the “Libertarian” candidate in the last election I had heard from many of the Libertarians that I knew that they considered the party now “out-of-touch” with its own ideals, while “switches” such as Mike Ferguson of Missouri, and Ron Paul to the Republican party many see the party as loosing ground to the entire Federalist system, with the party choosing to side with the probable ‘winners’ in the next round of Congressional election in the hopes of having some effect. Meanwhile it is plain to observers of politics that the issues of larger government control of sociaty and restriction-by-definition of individual rights and freedoms is endemic to the basic platforms of both major parties. Any hopes of “effecting” the parties from within is not seen as a viable option as the core of each party solidifies with lock-step requirements for ‘membership’ and more and more pandering to vocal/visible/monetary minority with stated agendas of Federally mandated ‘control’ for specific changes.
Meanwhile there seems little interest in the “party-core” for projects which actually promise REAL progress on answering the questions of ‘how-to’ and ‘how-does-it-work’ on the nuts-and-bolts of a functional Libertarian sociaty. Groups and projects such as the “Free State” initative:
http://www.freestateproject.org/
…and groups focused on winning elections and setting policy at the state, county, and local levels which has been for years focused on the mission of legitimizing the Libertarian’s as an effective and WORKABLE political system.
Which of course is THE major point of the whole issue: Does “Libertarian-ism” work on anything above a small-group or local leve and can a transition from current politics to a Libertarian system be accomplished without the need for a another “Civil” war or Revolution and the wrecking and forceable de-construction and reconstruction of the present system with all the economic, social, and physical turmoil that entails?
“The Probability Broach” and “The Venus Belt” are both good fiction that shows the Libertarian ideal of Utopia and its struggle for suvival against what would seem to be a diametrically opposed belief system. But they are based on a set of historical assumptions that were low-probability and don’t take into account then and later social and individual mores, attitudes, and already ‘trained’ responses that had a MUCH higher chance of occuring in the timeline.
Despite thier drawbacks I enjoyed both, (though I had and still have issues with the assumption that Venus is ‘useless’ as it is :o) and recommend them to anyone as good fiction. I also recommmend them as a “primer” on basic Libertarian-ism, but with the caveat that anyone take a good hard look at the differences between where the Libertarian “Ideal” is and current or historic governmental operations and ask yourself the question of how we could get from “here-to-there” before they jump on the Libertarian bandwagon :o)
Randy
>Well, now, ask yourself this, then: if you agree with the points made above, what makes you a “far leftist?”
Glad to. No, I don’t reserve the right of self-defense to myself (or those who I ‘like’ or agree with); to my mind, gun ownership should be forbidden only to those of unsound mind, not necessarily denied to those who’ve served time, include full auto weapons, and be devoid of gov’t listing of who owns what (nice easy means to round ’em up). DETAILS of what would constitute ‘unsound mind’ are of course open to argument, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue, a long and involved one, which I’ll pass on here.
As to ‘I’m self sufficient, and will never burden others,’ that’s a statement of intent, not rational certitude (save the choice of suicide…if one remains able to exercise it). All of us who survive will become elderly; any of us could at any time become disabled. Some of us are BORN without the ability for self-care, or limited in that regard. Not all of those in any of these catagories have family able or willing to care for them. To my mind, being patriotic includes the willingness…indeed, the self-assigned moral and ethical obligation…of shouldering one’s part of the ‘burden’ of society’s provison of caretaking for those unable to care for themselves.
I’m fully aware — and mindful of — gov’t’s and individuals’ (and groups’) ‘gaming the system’ in terms of various forms of social aid (though I might argue the extent to which this takes place, among other issues). But your question wasn’t as to my opinion of the QUALITY of tax-subsidized care for the ‘truely needy,’ but of how I could justify belief in same with allegations of self-sufficiency. I do so by saying that a society which leaves the needy to suffer or die is immoral; that taxes used to do that are NOT extracted from ME, anyway, ‘at gunpoint’ (literal or figurative), and that while it is perfectly acceptable to me that a person unable to care for themselves might CHOOSE to die rather than to burden strangers, it would be unethical of a just society to leave them no choice but to do so.
> To my mind, being patriotic includes the willingness…indeed, the self-assigned moral and ethical obligation…of shouldering one’s part of the ‘burden’ of society’s provison of caretaking for those unable to care for themselves.
Put perhaps simplistically: If you see a person with a problem and your response is “I shall help this person,” that makes you a conservative. If you see a person with a problem and your response is “I shall make other people help this person,” that makes you a liberal.
The moment you decide that the problems of one person are the problems of *all* people, and that *all* people must be forced to provide aid, you have enslaved *all* people. People should have the right to be selfish dicks if they want to, just as they should have the right to shower their favorite charities with as much of their wealth as they like.
> I do so by saying that a society which leaves the needy to suffer or die is immoral
Imagine a world where the government really and truly did not do a thing to help, say, starving orphans in the street. Would your response to this situation be to try to force the government to change… or would it be to go get a sammich for a starving orphan in the street?
On the one hand, you have a society where the people choose to take on the burdern of providing aid themselves. On the other hand you have a society where the peopel have chosen to put the burdern of providing aid *on* *everybody* *else.* Socilized charity is selfishness, in that rather than oding it yourself, you have decided that the job *must* be done… but jsut not by you, and you’re going to force everyone else to do the job. Individualized charity, on the other hand, is substnatially more “moral.”
> that taxes used to do that are NOT extracted from ME, anyway, ‘at gunpoint’ (literal or figurative)
Really? Try not paying your taxes for a few years. See what happens.
Randy: Good post.
As to the Libertarian party… I see them never getting anywhere. They always seem to come off as a bunch of clowns.
As to selling off NASA: I can see whey the idea might be annoying… but had that actually occured in the mid-1980’s… why, gosh, we’d have lost out on the last 20 years of fabulous NASA progress in manned spaceflight!
Losing the current NASA launch facilities would hardly be a detriment to manned spaceflight anyway. Just about any new launch vehicle requires a new pad anyway… and there have been more thana few launch vehicle concepts whose need for a “pad” is amply met at the local airport, of could be filled with a few mixer truckloads of concrete and rebar.
Had NASA not been there, *AND* had the government (including FAA) not served as a major detriment to launch vehicle development, a good case can be made that commercial manned spaceflight would be a reality today. I’d gladly have given up the Shuttle and ISS for, say, Space Van.
>People should have the right to be selfish dicks if they want to…
Why?
>>People should have the right to be selfish dicks if they want to…
> Why?
Really? *Really?*
Sigh.
OK. Because otherwise they are slaves. Once you have determined that a person does *not* have the right to keep what he has earned, you have taken from him the right to keep *anything* he has earned. His labors become not his, but the States.
Our particular State was bequeathed to us by distant ancestors who declared its purposes to be (among other things) to ‘establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.’ Back then, if I’m not mistaken, individual’s ‘right’ to be selfish dicks was obviated by social opprobrium. If one tithe…let alone attend church…one was ostracized. In theory, this ‘enforced charity’ saw to the needs of the needy. Obviously, today’s society is largely free of such forces. Charity of course exists…but are all needs served by being left to charity alone?
If your statement
>Once you have determined that a person does *not* have the right to keep what he has earned, you have taken from him the right to keep *anything* he has earned.
equates to a belief that the IRS shouldn’t exist, MY question to YOU is, should ‘justice’ (judges, courts, jails), ‘Tranquility’ (cops), and ‘defense’ (military services and infrastructure, including that of procurement, oftimes of one-off test models), and the securing of liberty (public schools and libraries, and public health care for the indigent…who can’t enjoy much freedom if they can’t afford insurance) be provided for (i.e., funded) only by those who subsidize the gov’t with freely given ‘charity?’
Theoretically (lots of practical problems), we the people have the power to change the gov’t and its means of doing things (or what it spends taxes on, anyway). To some extent this happens every 4-8 years. The result? Chaos. One administration and/or Congress begins a program more long-term than its period in office. The next changes or obliterates it. I see no ‘answer’ to this, and each of us has his pet peeves as to what shluldn’t have been axed (Saturn V, IMHO, for one).
From birth until age 18 or 21 we’ve no choice but to live by the terms of the social contract of the nation into which we’ve been born. After that we can leave or at least raise more-likely-to-be-paid-attention-to hell about what we don’t like about said contract. I don’t have much objection to the standing contract myself, have never taken issue with my rate of taxation, and despite buying myself way too many nifty goodies (including APR & etc.) believe it to be immoral to be selfish.
If one observed a person enjoying a bountiful meal in front of a starving person, one would (correctly, I think) judge that individual to be ‘bad,’ and in the greater sense, a ‘bad’ member of society. How does this judgement change if the starving (or insurance-less, or crippled, or retarded) person is out of sight and out of mind?
> Back then, if I’m not mistaken, individual’s ‘right’ to be selfish dicks was obviated by social opprobrium.
Yes. And that’s much to be preferred to armed government agents.
> Charity of course exists…but are all needs served by being left to charity alone?
If the federal government was reduced to what it’s supposed to be, the budget would drop by probably three-quarters, which means your federal income tax woudl drop by even more (Yay, inefficencies!). Which woudl mean that, on the whole, your effective income would go up somewhere between a third and a half. What would you do with that extra money? Any charities interest you?
>MY question to YOU is, should … be provided for … only by those who subsidize the gov’t with freely given ‘charity?’
Tell me: how was the US govenment funded *before* the IRS?
> One administration and/or Congress begins a program more long-term than its period in office. The next changes or obliterates it. I see no ‘answer’ to this
I do: http://up-ship.com/blog/blog/?p=3409
in short: prevent the government from startign new spending programs until they’ve cleaned house.
> I… believe it to be immoral to be selfish
Why? And of course… define “selfish.” If you find a single seed out in the wilderness, and tend it, raise it and its progeny and through the sweat of your brow turn it from an essentially meaningless seed into an acre of crops… why is it selfish of you to want to decide for yourself what to do with that crop?
> If one observed a person enjoying a bountiful meal in front of a starving person, one would (correctly, I think) judge that individual to be ‘bad,’
Horse shit. I don’t know *where* you got that notion but… it’s just so wrong as to be inconceivable to rational people.
There’s nothing “bad” about doing well for oneself or ones chosen circle (friends, family, etc.). Is it “bad” that the US went from being a poverty stricken agrarian society to the wealthiest nation man has ever seen… while other cultures that stuck with dictatorships and thugocracies or just bad luck remained mired in famine? Is it “bad” that Americans go to Disneyworld while Sudanese die in the gutter?
> If one observed a person enjoying a bountiful meal in front of a starving person, one would (correctly, I think) judge that individual to be ‘bad,’
(admin) Horse shit. I don’t know *where* you got that notion but… it’s just so wrong as to be inconceivable to rational people.
Uh, wait. I thought you said:
> If you see a person with a problem and your response is “I shall help this person,” that makes you a conservative.
Don’t misunderstand; I get the contrast between an individual’s free choice to help, and ‘stolen’ tax money being applied towards a (let’s just assume for the sake of argument) helpful end. But are you saying that you — who claims to find the old society of ‘neighbors’ moral opprobrium enforces good behavior’ superior to today — find NOTHING wrong with an individual’s choice NOT to help the proverbial ‘person with a problem?’ NOTHING wrong with a person eating a banquet in front of one who is starving?
Been reading
Been reading The Probability Broach, BTW. Very interesting. Comments later.
>But are you saying that you … find NOTHING wrong with an individual’s choice NOT to help the proverbial ‘person with a problem?’
Where did I say I found “nothing” wrong with it? Your claim was that someone who did well while others suffered was a “bad” person.
There is a world of difference between three possible scenarios:
1) The guy who buys himself a first class airline ticket, and gives it up when he sees a bedraggled soldier going home on the same flight
2) The guy who buys himself a 1st class ticket, sees the soldier, shrugs, and orders up the champaign
3) The guy who somehow or other steals the 1st class ticket from the soldier
Case 1 is someone going “above and beyond” (granted, not that far, but still). It’s a wonderfull thing to see, I would imagine (never have seen it). Case 2 is someone who is simply obeying the rules, and deserves neither abuse nor acclaim. Case 3 is a criminal, and deserves to be punished.
Helping people in need – truly in need, not asshole fakers – is something that people should do, if they are able. But it’s generally not something they should be legally *forced* to do.
Now, to your example: you consider the meal-eater to be a “bad” person. Even though he has spent his life obeying the law, donating time and effort to charities, living a life of poverty through no direct fault of his own, has fallen in love with a beautiful, yet also desperately poor, woman, and has saved up a months worth of scrounginds to take her to the one decent restaurant in town in order to give her one good meal in her miserable life and ask for her hand in marriage in a setting other than misery and squallor… but there’s a window, and the penniless crackhead rapist who killed the woman’s mother and kicks puppies for fun happens to wander by on his way to sell meth to local schoolkids and looks inside and sees the meal and drools. Which one of these is “bad?” The guy who gave up a months worth of minimal comforts to give himself and his girl a good time? Really? *HE* is the bad guy here?
WEAR A GUN TO SOMEONE’S HOUSE, YOU’RE SAYING I’LL DEFEND THIS HOME AS IF IT WERE MY OWN! WHEN YOUR GUESTS SEE YOU CARRY A WEAPON, YOU’RE SAYING, I’LL DEFEND YOU AS IF YOU WERE MY OWN FAMILY
…or perhaps there’ll be an argument and I’ll shoot you.
Libertarianism denies the existence and functions of society. It is about selfish greed and nothing more. “I’m alright jack and fuck you!” is the essential heart of its beliefs. If a person is disabled, unable to care for themselves or their family, they are allowed to starve or are required to beg for help from charities. A society is not judged by how it allows individuals to care for itself but rather how it cares for those who need the most help. I am very glad and thankful that I live in a modern, liberal society which has an adequate social safety net. When i was presented with the massive bill for my first child’s birth and post-natal care (he is disabled) I merely gave the bill to the Government and the Government paid it. I pay taxes because I know those taxes ensure that I have adequate health care, roads, schools and all the other facilities that I, as an individual would never be able to afford or provide for myself.
The more guns you have in a society, the less safe that society is, that is the message that the rest of the world has learnt from the United States. Its a shame the US can’t perceive that itself.
> or perhaps there’ll be an argument and I’ll shoot you.
An arguement incessantly made by the anti-gun crowd whenever some state or locality is considering loosening gun control laws (such as concealed carry). “Blood in the streets,” ‘old west shootouts,” blah, blah, blah. It’s the same old fear-mongering that the average person cannotbe trusted until made harmless. And it’s always proven *wrong.*
> Rickshaw Says…
Ah, Captain Collectivism comes to the fore!
> Libertarianism denies the existence and functions of society.
Nope. What you’re describing is “anarchy.” “Libertarianism” is about “minarchy.”
> A society is not judged by how it allows individuals to care for itself
Speak for yourself, subject.
> The more guns you have in a society, the less safe that society is
That’s wrong, of course.
Every citizen is armed in the Probability Broach universe – I stand by what I said.
>Every citizen is armed in the Probability Broach universe – I stand by what I said.
But what you said does not square with reality in *this* universe. Who are less likely to use guns to commit crimes… concealed carry permit holders or those with no such permits? The former, and by substantial margins. Those who choose to get such permits choose to take on a greater responsibility *and* a greater awareness of what they are doing and capable of than those who do not. The “PB” universe would indoctrinate an even stronger understanding of the proper use of weaponry into it’s citizens. CCW permits require at most a few hours training. the PB universe would inculcate a proper weapons ethic over the entire childhood.
Talk to CCW holders. Hell, talk to *me.* I am relatively short tempered, and like many, annoyed as hell by all the Maniacs and Morons on the road. But I am substantially *less* excitable when I’m out and about with a firearm within easy reach. And this is *without* having grown up in a society that takes a rational view to armed citizenry, but instead in Illinois.
OK, looks can be deceiving. In your example, no rational person would condemn the banquet-enjoyer, given knowledge of the circumstances. But your strong response to my notion that to gorge before the starving was morally culpable
>Horse shit. I don’t know *where* you got that notion but… it’s just so wrong as to be inconceivable to rational people.
and your statement
>If you find a single seed out in the wilderness, and…raise it…through the sweat of your brow… why is it selfish of you to want to decide for yourself what to do with that crop?
implies you think no one has any moral or ethical obligation to help anyone (other than, presumably, members of their immediate family)…i.e., that charity is an individual option, the non-practice of which should incur neither shame nor criticism. Is this in fact your view?
Scott ‘ol buddy? Are you MISSING the point of the following conversation on purpose or what?
>>>>>>If one observed a person enjoying a bountiful meal in front of a
>>>>>>starving person, one would (correctly, I think) judge that individual
>>>>>>to be ‘bad,’
>>>>>(admin) Horse shit. I don’t know *where* you got that notion but…
>>>>>it’s just so wrong as to be inconceivable to rational people.
>>>>Uh, wait. I thought you said:
>>>>If you see a person with a problem and your response is
>>>> “I shall help this person,” that makes you a conservative.
>>>But are you saying that you … find NOTHING wrong with an individual’s
>>>choice NOT to help the proverbial ‘person with a problem?’
>Where did I say I found “nothing” wrong with it? Your claim was that
>someone who did well while others suffered was a “bad” person.
FIRST lets re-add the IMPORTANT distinctive sentence that you’ve constantly been AVOIDING each time:
“NOTHING wrong with a person eating a banquet in front of one who is starving?”
Which by the way is a REQUIRED CONTEXTUAL CLUE to the situation at hand. Your argument keeps stopping at the idea that the person eating the banquet is doing “well” for himself, which he probably is but is entirely BESIDE the point being discussed. He not only WILL NOT help the person with the problem HIMSELF, nor aid others in assisting him he is ACTIVELY flaunting his “superior” status to the person with the problem AND taunting said individual with the sight, smell, and proximity of something the person NEEDS TO SURVIVE but is BEING DENIED by this “dick” who’s not only “doing-well” but gets off being sadistic about it.
NOW, the question from the begining is why do YOU not feel that THIS person of whom the scenerio was constructed around is not defined as a “bad” person whom (if it were me in same scenerio and assuming a near-type society as we’ve been discussing with armed populace and low-law/government/enforcement background) I would feel fully justified pulling my gun, shooting him in the head, kicking his twitching body to the gutter and seating and SLOWLY feeding his cooling meal to the starving person.
Does that make me a “conservative,” a “liberal,” of just some nut with a gun who ‘forces’ my view of civility on others by force?
As to gun and sociaty, (lets make that an “armed” public because you {Rickshaw} I assume might have noticed that there looked to be a good deal more blades than projectile weapons… But the ‘argument’ stands in either case :o) Rickshaw claimed:
(Whole quote Scott, in this case it’s VERY important :o)
>The more guns you have in a society, the less safe that society is,
>that is the message that the rest of the world has learnt from the
>United States. Its a shame the US can’t perceive that itself.
Rick you KNOW that crime-statistics and death rates show the exact opposite don’t you? That crime on average, and violent crime is higher in the rest of the ‘un-armed citizens’ world than in the United States? The REST of the world has a long HISTORY of having an un-armed populace and that colors their perceptions and assumptions. It’s quite normal in the REST of the world that when a majority of citizens decide to GAIN arms that the local society becomes “less-safe” usually because the “newly-armed” citizenry is engaging in violence in order to redress ‘grievences’ against another group of citizens, the government, and/or anyone else who get in their way.
Despite historic and recent continued examples of the levels of high crime and violence rates in supposed “weapons-free” nations there is and always has been a PERCIEVED picture of the United States being populated by gun-toting neo-barbarians dancing in the streets firing weapons wildly. (Yet I happen to note that the ‘rest’ of the world doesn’t seem HALF as concerned with nations in the Middle East where this IS happening quite a bit more than in the United States? :o)
The “rest” of the world of course is well aware that when “average” citizens get their hands on weapons they will tend to get “violent” with them and of course they “know” that criminals use weapons all the time to commit crimes, so they “assume” that since the United States since its inception actually GAVE citizens the RIGHT to “bear-arms” (in the “rest” of the world this “right” has historically ONLY been allowed as a “privilage” of certain ‘classes’ within their sociaties and of course the average citizen has never been allowed to carry arms of any sort UNLESS called to war and provided with weapons by the “armed” class or government, weapons which are to be given up IMMEDIATLY when called to do so on pain of high level punishment) that an armed citizenry must of course then be USING those weapons to the detriment of sociaty. Either engaged in “robbing” fellow citizens at gun-point or engaging in constant gun-battles over minor infractions simply because they ARE armed!
After all, looking to their OWN history when the citizenry arm themselves they tend to engage in violence against the ruling-class/government/other-citizens/etc…
These ‘assumptions’ of course are based on a biased and rather narrow interpritaton of the REST of the world’s history when dealing with populations of mostly UN-ARMED citizens as viewed by a small population segment with a historic ‘privilage’ of being the only “armed” citizens privilaged to be in control of larger segments of ‘un-armed’ citizens by virtue of their ‘right’ all based on having lower numbers but superior force-multipliers by being “armed” while the masses are not.
And for some ‘strange’ reason it is often EASIER to GAIN a weapon in the so called “un-armed” rest of the world than it is for a law-abiding citizen of the United States but this little fact seems to escape the rather narrow views of “world” opinion.
So if you care to look at the FACTS and real numbers rather than practice repeating rhetoric statments such as the one quoted above, you might expand your horizons by actually checking the statistics of American “violence” against the rest of the world’s nations. You might also read up on some history and notice the results when a minority segment of a nations population with the majority of the weapons suddenly finds itself faced with a majority of the citizens unhappy enough about the current situation to DO something about it.
As a friends often quotes: “Quantity has a Quality all its own” :o)
(As a hint I’ll give you this: Right after the above situation resolves the “revolution” the first thing the new regime does is DIS-ARM the citizens so they can’t pull a repeat if they don’t like the new regime. Since it’s a historically “working-model” of regime change, what would be the odds of the idea of keeping arms out of citizens hands in order to ‘keep-the-peace’ would become ingrained in any “successful” model of government? :o)
Starviking wrote:
>>or perhaps there’ll be an argument and I’ll shoot you.
Admin replied:
>An arguement incessantly made by the anti-gun crowd whenever some
>state or locality is considering loosening gun control laws (such as
>concealed carry). “Blood in the streets,” ‘old west shootouts,” blah, blah,
>blah. It’s the same old fear-mongering that the average person cannot
>be trusted until made harmless. And it’s always proven *wrong.*
Eh, that would be a “no” to that reply there Admin, it’s NEVER been proven “wrong” because it DOES happen all the time, wither the level of “gun-control” or even arms-control :o)
People kill each other over arguments even if they ONLY use their fists so the STATEMENT is correct.
Broadinging it to include the argument that armed citizens are dangerous to sociaty and themselves IS fear-mongering I’ll agree, but it does not make the original statement incorrect nor does it actually respond to the original comment.
Let me take a stab at it:
Starviking wrote:
>or perhaps there’ll be an argument and I’ll shoot you.
Not if I shoot first :o)
Simply put though, this is ALWAYS a possibilty armed or un-armed when people ‘violently’ disagree with each other. New laws won’t stop it from happening, “dis-arming” people won’t stop it, (even going as far as literally “dis-arming” won’t… I mean I’ve seen some MEAN head-butts before :o) in fact NOTHING will stop the possible outcome of a heated argument from ending with someone dead! Not unless you can “outlaw” emotions, opinions, and differences of any of the above! That would require a degree of control that SHOULD make everyone stop and think a second…
Now the ONLY difference that being armed with firearms instead of just a baseball-bat/sword/fists is that if Starviking is bigger and more skilled at hand to hand combat than I am, I have a “better” chance that the odds of me getting HIM before he gets ME are now even…
(“God made man, but Colonel Colt made them Equal” IIRCC :o)
But Scott’s “counter-argument” does bring up a good point that should be aired. I’m sure most here have heard or read the statment that “An Armed Society, is a Polite Society?”
Everybody knows it “horse-shit” (to quote Scott :o) right? In an “armed” society of ANY type be it swords or guns you ONLY have to be polite to the people you KNOW you can’t beat! Anyone you CAN whip is your bitch and you can let them know it all day long and NO-ONE can do anything about it.
The example most often used is the United States “Old-West” period when the man with the fastest gun was ‘king’ which is actually pretty true as far as it goes. Those who use it as an example FOR strict gun control or banning guns though need to be actually EDUCATED on what they are refering too though.
Before I finish that thought though lets also understand that this same type of “mentality” went on historically within the ARMED classes of EVERY nation in the world! The “Old-West” was far from the “aberation” that many supposedly ‘educated’ people would make it out to be, since similar periods can be found throughout history when a “frontier” was being settled. The major “difference” was that in the case of the “West” the arms were not restricted to ONLY a small class of ‘privilaged’ people. On average the “West” had MORE of the population that was “armed” but the segment that engaged in “shoot-outs,” “range-wars,” and other violent confrontations was, if viewed IN CONTEXT and compared to historic conflict within the “armed” classes of world society was actually SMALLER than those societies that restricted arms only to a special and privilaged class!
In Europe and “Back-East” in earlier times, the “armed” and “privilaged” segments of society would evolve swiftly to raise insults, insinuation, and other verbal warfare to a high art. This was a survival thing really. While you (as one of the privilaged class who was allowed or could afford to be armed) would be unable to openly note that the wife of someone in the room looked like “a bloated warthog” unless you were VERY good with your arms and knew you could easily take said wifes husband, (and probably Father, Brother, Uncle, cousin-to-several-levels if the family were that inclined) in a fight or duel. If you couldn’t you either quickly learned how to ‘insult’ her or her husband while appearing to NOT insult them or you learned how to fight REALLY-REALLY well, REALLY-REALLY fast, or you died. Of course if YOU had a LOT of money, it would also be quite easy to actually HIRE someone who WAS REALLY-REALLY good at fighting or dueling…
So getting back to the “Old West,” you can easily see that the practice of hiring a “man-that’s-handy-with-a-hogleg” wasn’t anything new. First of all it gave the person doing the hiring some ‘denyability,’ secondly it was in both the eyes-of-the-law, and in other peoples view a supposedly ‘fair’ fight since both participants would ‘stand-out’ with an equal chance of living or dying.
The major issue with this practice, which is basically “dueling” be it with guns, knives, or fists is that the fights are RARELY in any form ‘equal’ and as above the ‘odds’ can be adjusted by someone who ‘games-the-system’ to ensure the outcome.
And then there is the the “Gunfighter” (insert your favorite “fighter” type from any period of history if you like, be it a “Musketeer,” “Samuria,” “Swordsman,” whatever the outcome is the same) who KNOWS he’s the ‘best’ around and has proved it enough to cow the mostly ‘un-armed’ (if Old-West setting as yes, most folks didn’t constantly carry and practice with gun if they lived “in-town”) or totally UN-ARMED (if using any other period or setting other than the Old-West) populace into fearing he will turn his skill on THEM.
Now you have a ‘stand-off’ where the person (for this example will stick with the Gun-slinger) can do just about anything he wants because if ANYONE tries to stand up to him he can and will out-draw them and shoot them dead. Unless the populace is willing to engage this Gunman enmass and take the casualties envolved, (shoot him in the back you say? but what if you miss? Or he managed to notice you, or worse he survives? He’ll not only kill you but your family, your friends, hell he might go after anyone! which means ANY of those listed might TELL him your thinking about this to avoid being on his target list…) someone is going to have to ‘come-by’ and hopefully out-draw the Gunslinger or someone is going to have to find and hire someone… (Gads, the ideas here you could use for movie plots! Oh wait, these ARE movie plots, as well as real situations :o)
And THAT is where things would stand in most of the “Utopias” where everyone is armed and there is little or no government or law because there is not (real) “higher-authority” beyond the individual and his or hers ability to ‘enforce’ their own rights.
In the “reality” of the Old-West, the dynamics of the situation are that the Gunslinger even if he collect allies is going to be outnumbered by the guns of the citizenry around him and WHEN, (not if) someone shoots him in the back it won’t be JUST one person! In addition there IS a “higher-authority” and they WILL eventually get around to sending someone to deal with the situation. And that “person” will have the authority and backing TO deal with the situation, whatever it takes most often overlooking any small details like ‘over-kill’ :o)
(Ok, you’ve got 6-shots and a quick draw but I’ve got 8-shots in my Winchester lever-action, total of 32 long-range shots between me and three deputies, and then another 24 IF we have to use our pistols but since we can out-range you, AND reload before you can get to us… Well it’s your call fella…. :o)
The situation was worse of course in ANY OTHER nation on Earth, since ONLY a small segment of the population was allowed to even CARRY or POSSES weapons ANY resistance would imply casualties, injury, and most likely deaths because the ONLY way to take out the person with the weapons WITHOUT weapons is to use large numbers of bodies to absorb and restrict the weapons. Hence a trend towards “going-along” with the situation until and unless it becomes so intollerable that you are willing to obtain weapons of your own, (automatically becoming an outlaw, and unable to re-enter society even if you win) or are willing to use whatever you have at hand as a weapon and overwhelm those imposing their will on you with the resultant chaos, blood, and death that are inevitable in such situations.
One MAJOR discrepence I’ve always noted in TPB which was brought up again while reading the graphic novel: IF society is ONLY concerned with the question of whether or not the ACT of murder was commited, and NOT the reason(s) as noted by Ed, why isn’t everyone involved not already ‘shuned’? After all it doesn’t matter if they ‘murdered’ the goons in ‘self-defense’ it ONLY matters that they COMMITED the act :o)
Randy
> implies you think no one has any moral or ethical obligation to help anyone
A “moral obligation,” possibly. A “legal obligation,” almost certainly *not.* As I’ve said before, the moment a government determines to use the force of law – which in the end means gun-toting agents of the state – to *force* someone to help someone he doesn’t want to help, the state is on the road to turning its people into slaves.
If you want to sneer at someone for not spending every last dime they make to feed the hungry, hungry children of Somalia, fine. If you want to send the FBI to knock people’s doors down to make sure they stop living the good life… well, let’s just say I disagree.
My interest here is LAW, not MORALITY.
> NOW, the question from the begining is why do YOU not feel that THIS person of whom the scenerio was constructed around is not defined as a “bad” person whom (if it were me in same scenerio and assuming a near-type society as we’ve been discussing with armed populace and low-law/government/enforcement background) I would feel fully justified pulling my gun, shooting him in the head, kicking his twitching body to the gutter and seating and SLOWLY feeding his cooling meal to the starving person.
Does that make me a “conservative,” a “liberal,” of just some nut with a gun who ‘forces’ my view of civility on others by force?
You suggest murder and theft as a counter to bad manners. That makes you a lunatic, and a willing servant of the sort of collectivist fascist state that the likes of Rickshaw would like to see imposed.
You suggest it’s nothing more than “bad manners” to eat a banquet in full view of a (undeservedly, for sake of argument) starving person? *Really?* I suspect if YOU were that starving person…unable to feed yourself for reasons beyond your control…you’d have no compunctions in using force of arms to change your circumstances. Or am I wrong?
You suggest it’s nothing more than “bad manners”…
Bad manners and probably unwise. It might be about as wise as walking through the Bad Neighborhoods late at night wearing a suit made of $100 bills taped together. You have the right to do so. Anyone who assaults you and takes it from you is comitting a crime and should be punished. You’s be a moron to expect that the fact that you are within your rights would protect you.
But as to your specific example: the starving using force of arms to change their circumstances is hardly a new concept. But a starving man who blows off a McDonalds patrons head to steal his Big Mac needs to be put *under* the jail. Using violence agaisnt someone who has done you no wrong – who has stolen nothing from you – is pretty much the very *definition* of immoral.
But as there seem to be a number of people who feel it would be *proper* to shoot someone who dares to eat in front of the starving, then I offer a counter proposal: those with the means to eat should shoot the starving. It seems a more rational solution, yes? “Eat the rich” may have been a fun slogan back in the day, but “eat the poor” makes a lot more sense. Sure, their nutritional value is of course less… but there are a lot more of ’em. And eating the rich is only going to make the rich disappear, and take their jobs with them… leading to more poor. Eating the poor not only directly reduces the headcount of the poor, it also incentivises the remaining poor to become less poor.
It’s a simple truth: tax what you want less of; subsidize what you want more of. Wealth is taxed, and increasingly so. Poverty is subsidized, and increasingly so. The result will be fewer and fewer productive people being squeezed to provide for more and more unproductive people.
(Bonus round: you’re a drug addict. You have no money. You’re in withdrawls *bad.* Essentially, you’re in Hell. Your dealer, who happenes to be fabulously well armed, won’t give you a fix until you cough up the cash. The only source of cash available is to mug that feller over there who’se showing off his brand new Porsche. A few minutes ago you went over and begged for money; he told you to get bent. So… who’s in the wrong? if you go and bash him over the head with a 2X4 and steal his wallet? You need it, after all, and he won’t give it to you.)
I was talking about the PB Universe – our universe doesn’t enter into it.
“But what you said does not square with reality in *this* universe. Who are less likely to use guns to commit crimes… concealed carry permit holders or those with no such permits? The former, and by substantial margins.”
And, in the PB universe there are no ‘concealed carrys’ – everyone has a gun. However, despite human nature all is hunky-dory. Rubbish.
“Those who choose to get such permits choose to take on a greater responsibility *and* a greater awareness of what they are doing and capable of than those who do not. The “PB” universe would indoctrinate an even stronger understanding of the proper use of weaponry into it’s citizens.”
Indoctrinate. Indoctrinate the whole population never to even think of using their firearms when angry, insane, drunk. Sounds like sheep.
“CCW permits require at most a few hours training. the PB universe would inculcate a proper weapons ethic over the entire childhood.”
Obey…obey..obey?
“Talk to CCW holders. Hell, talk to *me.* I am relatively short tempered, and like many, annoyed as hell by all the Maniacs and Morons on the road. But I am substantially *less* excitable when I’m out and about with a firearm within easy reach. And this is *without* having grown up in a society that takes a rational view to armed citizenry, but instead in Illinois.”
But you are in a minority that is highly motivated to show that firearms can be responsibly handled by the vast majority of citizen. You have a strong incentive to conform to the ideals of the group. In the PB universe everyone has access to weapons, weapon holders are not minorities there. From what I’ve seen of human nature there are enough arseholes, head-cases, and guys with short tempers (myself included) that the PB universe seems like a poorly written child’s fantasy.
> However, despite human nature all is hunky-dory. Rubbish.
Well, sure. That’s the nature of political sci-fi. But if you want *real* rubbish, look at collectivist sci-fi. I’ve got some real doozies from a century ago (Looking Back” being one) where the humans of the future are freakin’ *unrecognizable.*
> Indoctrinate the whole population never to even think of using their firearms when angry, insane, drunk. Sounds like sheep.
Uh… huh. So you think people in *this* universe are “sheep” if they by into the notion that they are not supposed to drive while drunk?
> From what I’ve seen of human nature there are enough arseholes, head-cases, and guys with short tempers (myself included) that the PB universe seems like a poorly written child’s fantasy.
Ah, but there’s one more factor: in *our* universe, someone goes bonkers with a gun, he runs away. In the PB universe, someone goes bonkers with a gun – or a knife, a stick, a bottle, his bare hands – he’ll get his ass shot. As the Kzinti in *their* universe discover, those with poor impulse control, when confronted with people unwilling to roll over, select themselves out of the gene pool for the next generation.
I do not believe that the PB universe could truly work… there’d be too much chaos. There probably needs to be *some* sort of order. But we have fallen far, FAR from the “middle,” and are well into the state-control-of-everything phase. It’d be nice to see things swing the other way. But unfortunately, the “middle” is defined as the midpoint between the two extremes, and while the Left is jam-packed with extremists, the Right is not. The Right is freakin’ *timid* in this country (and from what I can see, essentially non-existent elsewhere).
The Right isn’t jammed-pack with extremists? Are you defining out of the “Right” (despite who you KNOW they voted for) the geriatric Nazi who shot up the Holocaust Museum? The “pro-lifer” who kills an abortionist (several examples to date)? The jackasses who blamed 9/11 on “Godless” Americans? Palin, with her talk of who’s a “real” American and who isn’t? Bush, who talked big about his responsibility to defend the country, when in fact the Oath of Office goes “to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION”? Cheney, who I daresay masterminded the concept — and cherry-picked the mid-level legal aperatchik to support — the concept that an American detained on American soil could be denied due process, et al, and confined as long as was seen fit? “Freakin’ *timid*, the folks who created the Presidential Security Squad, or whatever the hell it was called (which whatever it did or did not accomplish, by its very EXISTENCE subverted everything from oversight to the separation of powers)? I’ve read the Gulag trilogy multiple times, Scott, studied pre-war German history, know full well the near-frictionless slippery slope of “legislating morality” — but what the hell do you call a citizen (governmentally employed or not) who rubber-stamps by action or acquiescence the wholesale trades of liberty for security we saw for eight years? I’d call that person a sheep.
And as for the banquet-eater “doing you no wrong,” I’d suggest again that, were you the guy he was gorging in front of, you would indeed feel harm being done you. Do you claim otherwise?
Starviking wrote:
>Every citizen is armed in the Probability Broach universe – I stand
>by what I said.
Scott wrote:
>But what you said does not square with reality in *this* universe.
Yes it does Scott and you KNOW this :o) CCW, no CCW, weapons training, cultural bias’ whatever. The BASIC fact is that ANY argument can end in violence. Now it IS more likely in TPB universe that a heated argument will end up with “coffee and seconds at dawn,” though more probable that people will seperate those having the discussion but be it gun, sword, or fists the stated comment IS true. This universe, TPB, whatever if you have beliefs and passion any disagreement CAN end with someone dead on the floor, it happens often enough at any rate.
One of the things I like about TPB as a universe is they don’t seem to carry CONCEALED weapons which may be why I’ve never bothered to get a CCW. (That and the fact I don’t own a gun I’d consider carrying concealed… and you can’t get one for a blade, which I wouldn’t WANT to hide :o)
The TPB statement above of “Civilized people go armed to say “I’m self sufficent, I’ll never burden others,…” etc is bull of course. NO ONE is “self-sufficent” in any practical manner, and any thoughts of someone BEING self-sufficient are mostly self delusional fantasy very similar to the “noble-savage” myth.
Everyone is a ‘burden’ to others at one time or another in their lives, it can’t be helped that’s WHY we have ‘civilization’ and why humans tend to congregate. That way the ‘burden’ is never overwhelming to any one person and no one ever has to face a crisis on their own.
On the other hand humans are naturally pretty damn selfish and if you’re not raised in a framework of culturally or social morals and ethics that teaches an ‘obligation’ too those morals and ethics humans can be right bastards with no more thought to another human as being a tool to “use-abuse-lose” and move on in a perpetual state of selfish self-serving.
On the gripping hand? Well as “Officer John Spartan” say’s in “Demolition Man” “Somewhere in the Middle We’ll live” :o)
Officially I’ve never felt that CCW actually ‘deters’ crime, concealed weapons only serve to defend AFTER the criminal has commited to acting on the thought of committing a crime. DISPLAYED weapons on the other hand, those actually state: “I’ve got a weapon and it’s ready and open. I MAY or MAY NOT know how to use it, or be willing to use it given the opportunity. How willing are YOU to find out which it is?” :o)
The good point: It’s deterance, the bad? Well, if you DON’T know or can’t use it WELL and it comes down to it, you have just handed someone ANOTHER weapon AND given them a boost in confidence that they can and will get away with doing it again.
Moving on;
I wrote:
>>NOW, the question from the begining is why do YOU not feel that THIS
>>person of whom the scenerio was constructed around is not defined
>>as a “bad” person whom (if it were me in same scenerio and assuming
>>a near-type society as we’ve been discussing with armed populace
>>and low-law/government/enforcement background) I would feel fully
>>justified pulling my gun, shooting him in the head, kicking his twitching
>>body to the gutter and seating and SLOWLY feeding his cooling meal to
>>the starving person.
>>Does that make me a “conservative,” a “liberal,” of just some nut
>>with a gun who ‘forces’ my view of civility on others by force?
Scott replied to the SECOND part but not the first with:
>You suggest murder and theft as a counter to bad manners.
>That makes you a lunatic, and a willing servant of the sort of
>collectivist fascist state that the likes of Rickshaw would like to
>see imposed.
My reply would have to be; Scott? Are you SO wrapped up in rhetorical idealogy that you can’t actually read or understand what someone writes instead of what your reflex, knee-jerk reaction of re-writing scenerio’s to support your pre-disposed pigeon-hole, cookie-cutter judgment of people who dare disagree with you so that you can support ignoring the basic question being discussed in order to focus on posting only your pre-digested responses which do not adress the issue being discussed?
Because if so, then you might as well call me a “Nazi” and ensure the ending of this thread, (BBS and older intenet message forum’s folks will get that ‘in’ joke I’m sure… ‘course you DID insinuate that I’m a “fascist” which is damn close :o) becaue we’re not going to get ANYWHERE unless you actually read and understand what I’m writing.
DID I suggest “murder and theft” as a counter to “bad manners” in any way, shape, or form? Not at all, because “I” didn’t replace “starving” with “hungry-crack-head” and “man eating a banquet” with “Mr. Humble who worked his entire life to feed his wife a good last meal before she shuffles off this motal coil” as you did in order to re-arrange the scenerio so you could “feel-good” about your answer.
A HUNGRY person will eat anything digestable in order to survive if they have no other resources. They may even forgo eating anything if there is nothing they can digest or mentally force themselves to eat for a day or two in order to seek out some other type of nourishment. They damn sure won’t be DYING from hunger at this point.
A STARVING person will eat ANYTHING they can force down their throats edible or not, to try and stave off the howling empty pit that is their stomach. They ARE dying, and as long as they can MENTALLY force themselves to live another day in the hope that they can find something to eat that will actually KEEP THEM ALIVE they will live until their body finally fails them. It is a known FACT that 90% of staying alive when you are starving is MENTAL fortitude because your BODY is already DYING by degrees as it consumes itself trying to stay alive.
The person in the scenerio is STARVING, not simply a homeless bum who hasn’t had a meal today. THIS is IMPORTANT POINT NUMBER ONE.
Please pay attention.
The person who is having the banquet in front of this DYING person is not just suffering from “bad manners” and there IS no ‘resteraunt’ and dyning wife etc. He’s being an evil son-of-a-bitch without ANY doubt because he is DELIBERATLY and PRE-MEDITATEDLY (is that a word?) trying to CRUSH the DYING persons will to live by FLAUNTING his ability to eat while someone dies in front of him for lack of something to eat.
This is IMPORTANT POINT NUMBER TWO.
Recall that when you are REALLY starving and not just using it as an expression, you are DYING and about the ONLY thing keeping you going is your MENTAL ATTITUDE.
THIS is IMPORTANT POINT NUMBER THREE.
Now when I pull my gun and shoot the person eating his food am I commiting murder? Yes I am, and this is why the idea of ONLY being concerned with whether the act was commited or not and not caring about the ‘reason’ is an unworkable system of judment and in no way capable of providing ‘justice’ in a civilized manner.
I’m not ‘suggesting’ murder I am whole heartdly endorsing and recommending it! Without ‘suger-coating’ the situation AS described the ‘eating’ man is attempting to “murder” the ‘starving’ man by breaking his will to live, I suggest that murder to prevent murder is justified.
As to “theft” I could just as easily continue to walk away as the “starving” man will crawl across broken glass and razor blades to get at the food in order to survive. The dead guy no longer needs it, so I see no reason not to assist the man who’s life I may have just saved, (I should get him medical help too since he can very easily still die through organ failure) partake of the food as he is liable to make himself ill or choke on the food trying to eat too fast. He’s not out of the woods yet.
So am I a “lunatic” in the definition of the word? Hardly, given the circumstances as presented in the actual scenerio. In your “revised-re-written, and sugar-coated” re-telling of the scenerio my reaction would of course be different in that I probably wouldn’t even notice the entire scene. Not my concern or my place to do anything as no one is in ‘danger’ or attempting to kill someone else so like any other time I’ve gone out to eat with my wife or friends I’d be oblivous to the entire situation.
Does any of the above make me “a willing servent of collectivist fascist state” (you DO understand that those two political terms are mutally exclusive in practice correct?) not in any possible universe but if “pegging” me as such helps you sleep more smugly and comefy at night it’s no skin off my nose. Your labels do now own me, and if you STILL can’t understand what the actual scenerio is about nor answer the question of why YOU do not feel that the ‘eating’ man is not a ‘bad’ person rather than just a dick with bad manners then you need to educate yourself. Or not. I will not ‘force’ you to submit to understanding the difference between the two opposed scenerio’s.
Randy
Wow.
> The Right isn’t jammed-pack with extremists?
No, it is not, certainly not in the way that the Left is. Attend:
A) Left wing extremist legislators put forward bills to strip all citizens fo their right to bear arms
B) But where are their opposite numbers who are proposing bills that all citizens *must* be armed?
As I said, the middle is defined as the midpoint between the extremes. The Left is more extreme thant the Right in this matter.
The rest of your examples were either flawed (the Nazi is about as “Right” as Hitler was… which by American standards makes him squarely Left), or just plain wrong.
> any thoughts of someone BEING self-sufficient are mostly self delusional fantasy
My condolences on the loss of your manhood. The collectivists have certainly done a number on you.
> concealed weapons only serve to defend AFTER the criminal has commited to acting on the thought of committing a crime.
Incorrect. Criminals know that concealed carry means that any prospective target might just turn around and shoot ’em, so they tend to go after those they feel least likely to pose a threat.
> Are you SO wrapped up in rhetorical idealogy that you can’t actually read or understand what someone writes instead of what your reflex, knee-jerk reaction of re-writing scenerio’s to support your pre-disposed pigeon-hole
The “scenarios” as presented to me were pretty damned vague, and left, as I pointed out, a great deal of room for alternate interpretations than the one that may have originally been presented. “Hungry” can mean a whole great many things, and if you are unwilling to be specific, be prepared to have your argument used against you.
>DID I suggest “murder and theft” as a counter to “bad manners” in any way, shape, or form?
If you suggest murder and theft as a proper response to, and I quote, “a person enjoying a bountiful meal in front of a starving person,” then yeah, you’re making a blanket statement of the willingness to commit murder because someone is enjoying a meal in front of a starving person, which covers a great deal of ground, most of which is likely to be “bad manners.”
> I’m not ’suggesting’ murder I am whole heartdly endorsing and recommending it!
Yeah… that’s pretty much the sort of thing that would get you banned in any rational forum. It’s pretty much exactly the problem I have with the likes of the fringe loopnuts on Free Republic. And why I’ll see what I can do towards getting you blocked from further posting on this blog. I certainly don’t need the cops showing up or my ISP getting pissy because I’m hosting people advocating murder.
Bye. It’s about time for me to go prepare my fabulous dinner of ramen noodles. Haven’t had anything to eat since breakfast. I’m starving.
>> Rickshaw Says…
>Ah, Captain Collectivism comes to the fore!
Ah, the admin who wants to continually play the man, not the ball, as we say downunder and who immediately resorts to ad hominem as soon as his personal viewpoint is challenged.
>> Libertarianism denies the existence and functions of society.
>Nope. What you’re describing is “anarchy.” “Libertarianism” is about “minarchy.”
Libertarianism decries any taxation. It decries the existence of government and it decries anything that infringes on the individual. It attacks any proposal that perhaps, just perhaps, the worst off in society might, just might, deserve help from the rest of society. Lets take the example of my disabled son again, shall we? I did not have sufficient money at the time of his birth to pay for the medical care he needed to survive. Under libertarianism, I would be told by society, “tough luck” and be expected to see him die as as a consequence. No help there, except if I go cap in hand and beg from some charity sufficient funds to ensure his survival. Under libertarianism, there would be little or no government, little or no taxation, no socialised medical system and a complete user pays system for all medical care. Can’t pay, “tough luck”. If I was given credit, by the hospital, I’d be in hock for the rest of ours’ and his lives simply trying to make the payments. I would be unable to afford adequate housing for my family as we’d never be able to afford it. My son would be saddled with these debts when I shuffled off this mortal coil. Is that fair? No, it isn’t and nothing you say will convince me that is true. And all because my son had the bad luck to be born with a disability.
The reality is that the exponents of libertarianism are, in my experience, young, have no responsibilites, suffer from rude health and have no chronic illness. They have never been unemployed and never had any set backs in their lives. In short, they have little real experience of the real world on which to base their theories on. They are the obverse of the Communists they decry so much, seeking their version of a utopian ideal which cannot exist in reality. Society exists to help its members and to protect them from the worst aspects of life. I don’t believe in “collectivism” beyond the idea that we are members of society and that yes, society as an entity does exist and unless all contribute, it will fail. That contribution is usually financial because that is how the wheels of society are oiled. We all utilise the benefits of that taxation, be it at the simplest, in the form of roads or schools or public transport, etc. To try and suggest that those benefits would exist under a purely user pays system shows a naivity which is quite silly.
>> A society is not judged by how it allows individuals to care for itself
>Speak for yourself, subject.
Again, ad hominem. Admin, you really do need to not lose debates so quickly. That is if you’re really looking for debate or are you merely looking for the chance to make pronouncements and expect us all to merely accept them and agree with them?
>> The more guns you have in a society, the less safe that society is
>That’s wrong, of course.
>> The Right isn’t jammed-pack with extremists?
>No, it is not, certainly not in the way that the Left is. Attend:
>A) Left wing extremist legislators put forward bills to strip all citizens fo their right to bear arms
>B) But where are their opposite numbers who are proposing bills that all citizens *must* be armed?
Excuse me but wasn’t there the famous case of someplace in America where a bylaw was passed that all residents must have a firearm?
There are extremits on all sides of the political spectrum. Neither the Left nor the Right has a monopoly on them. To most Americans, I’m on the extreme left of most leftists. In Australia, I’m considered a mild-left-of-centrist. Context is everything and while to me, many of Scott’s utterances have the appearance of being from the extreme right end of the spectrum, I know in the USA they are accepted often as normal and sensible. I can accept that but it appears that some here can’t.
I’ll still however suggest that libertarianism is utopian idealism which will never work in the real world. Unless of course you want to engage in some sort of extreme social Darwinist experiment?
>the admin who wants to continually play the man
Sorry, you don’t get to play the victim when your first post in the thread is factually inaccurate invective.
Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Go ahead, read that, and again make your pronouncements on exactly what libertarianism is. Libertarians cannot come even close toa greeing amongst themselves on much of *anything,* but boy, you’ve got ’em nailed down!
And it might be advisable to take a look at Aussie libertarians, such as here:
http://www.ldp.org.au/principles.html
In contrast to your statements that “Libertarianism decries any taxation. It decries the existence of government ,” the “Liberal Democratic Party says this:
Low tax, limited public spending and minimal regulation
Constitutional liberal democracy
Ethical and impartial government under the rule of law
Devolution of power including decentralised government and competitive federalism
Now, to me that sure reads like *some* taxes and *some* government is exactly what they;re calling for… not the *none* you claim.
> Under libertarianism, I would be told by society, “tough luck” and be expected to see him die as as a consequence.
Inaccurate. Again.
> No help there, except if I go cap in hand and beg from some charity sufficient funds to ensure his survival.
So instead you go cap in hand and beg from the taxpayers, who have no choice but to give your “charity.”
>Under libertarianism, there would be little or no government, little or no taxation, no socialised medical system and a complete user pays system for all medical care.
And you make it seem like you think that would be a bad thing. If there was no government health care, there is every reason to believe that medical care woudl be *vastly* less expensive. What motivation do doctors have to be less expensive if the governemnt is going to foot the bill anyway?
> My son would be saddled with these debts when I shuffled off this mortal coil.
Well, I guess it’s a good thing future generations will be spared having to pay down massive government debts….
> society as an entity does exist and unless all contribute, it will fail.
Wow. So if someone decides to jump off the grid, society will fail? Pretty weak society.
> if you’re really looking for debate or are you merely looking for the chance to make pronouncements and expect us all to merely accept them and agree with them?
Ummmm… what are *you* doing here?
>> The more guns you have in a society, the less safe that society is
>That’s wrong, of course.
As it appears my answer was chopped short, here is what I said:
Why is it wrong? You are approximately 4.5 times more likely to be a victim of firearms related homicide than I am? Our societies’ attitudes towards firearms are remarkably different. The chance of being a victim is significantly statistically higher in your society than mine. My society chose deliberately in 1996 after the appalling Port Arthur Massacre to not go down “the American route” with firearms ownership. Have we benefited? Appears so.
> Excuse me but wasn’t there the famous case of someplace in America where a bylaw was passed that all residents must have a firearm?
Yes, the one small town of Kennesaw, georgia passed a law that every head of a household must own a gun. That was in 1982, IIRC. It was in response to the opposite law in Morton Grove, Illinois. Of course, the criem rate in Morton Grove went up, that of Kennesaw went down when their laws were passed.
But while you can point to Kennesaw as being “famous,” it’s only famous because it’s such an unusual case. But the same can hardly be said for the opposite. Go ahead and *try* to buy a handgun in D.C. or NYC. There are repeated efforts to bring out laws that would effectively terminate Americans rights to own guns. There has beena constant creepign success in this drive; only recently has the Heller case even coem close to makign a dent. But once again i ask: where are the Congressmen and/or Senators proposing laws that would make gun ownership by Americans *mandatory*?
Simialrly, there are laws in some states that mandate that gun owners must be licensed, and their info published. But where are the legislators pushing for laws where those who choose to be unarmed must be licensed, and have their info published? I woudl personally be amused by a law that mandates that any home devoid of firearms must prominantly dispaly a placated on the front door explaining exactly that, and asking burglars to please knock first.
>I’ll still however suggest that libertarianism is utopian idealism which will never work in the real world.
And that may very well be true. It might be that humans cannot survive without a boot stampign their face into the dirt. But we’ve seen what a glittering success the opposite of libertarianism has been. What’s the death toll for collectivism so far? 20 million out of Naxi Germany? 50 million out of the USSR? Somethign like 80 million out of China?
That’s an “extreme social Darwinist experiment” that I can confidently say has failed utterly.
>Why is it wrong?
The reason why its wrong is because you vastly oversimplify.
> You are approximately 4.5 times more likely to be a victim of firearms related homicide than I am?
Not necessarily true. “You” in this context means vastly different things based on where in the US you live, what ethnicity you are (which factors into what your local subculture is), whether or not you yourself engage in criminal activities, etc.
As Kennessaw showed… more guns = less crime, not more crime. When liberalized CCW laws are passed, you don;t see streets exploding into blood and gunfire. The *worst* you can say about an increase in peopel packing heat is that the crime rate doesn;t change. The best is that in many locales, the crime rate drops when the criminals know that more and more citizens are packign heat.
Additionally: Time averaged, the US is a far, far safer place to be than Europe when it comes to murder and mayhem. Death camps and genocide just ain’t our schtick. Haven’t been since the 1800’s.
American culture is not Australian culture. Bloods in LA are different from MS13 in Topeka are different from Boy Scouts in Atlanta are different from aborigines in the outback are different from Ozzie beach bums. *On* *the* *whole,* Americans murder each other at a higher rate that Ozzies… but the Americans who do so *tend* to not come from “average” America. American urban centers are often shitholes (See: Detroit). And if you want to clean up the crime rate there, taking guns from the law abiding won’t help. If people are murdering each other, you go after the reasons *why* they’re doing so… not *how* they’re doing so. Thugs will continue to brain people with clubs and rocks even if the guns are gone.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634/
Gun town U.S.A., revisited – success of Kennesaw, GA’s gun ownership requirement law in preventing crime
——
“In a column titled “Gun Town U.S.A.,” Art Buchwald described a place where routine disagreements would be settled in Wild West shootouts.”
“The most recent homicide, in 1989, was committed with a knife. The last gun homicide, in 1986, involved two young men from out of state who were staying at a local motel. “A little alcohol,” Chief Wilson recalls, “had something to do with it. They were daring one another to shoot each other, so one of them did.” Aside from that incident, Wilson says, there have been no problems with “anybody shooting anybody,” even by accident.”
If you like murder stats like that, perhaps it’s time to figure out *why* Kennesaw has murder stats like that. Is it because Kennesaw banned guns? Ummm….. no.
>>Why is it wrong?
>The reason why its wrong is because you vastly oversimplify.
No shit Sherlock? Really? You surprise me. When making _national_ comparisons, of course matters will need to be simplified. The national average for a firearms’ related homicide in the US is approximately 4.5 times that of Australia. Just as you claim that it all depends on where you live in America, the same is true for Australia. A person residing in Punchbowl, Sydney is a hell of a lot more likely to die in a firearms related homocide than a person residing in Hobart, Tasmania. However, the _national_ average still remains approximately 4.5 times less than the US one.
Now, the average gun ownership rate is also considerably higher in the US than in Oz. Therefore, the correlation which can be safely drawn is of course that the higher rate of gun ownership is proportional to the rate of gun related homicide in the US. However, as any good statistician knows (and no, Scott, I don’t consider you a good one), “correlation does not generally denote causation”. Other factors should be considered but as the instrument of choice for homicide in the US appears to be the firearm, its a fair bet to assume that a society which has a higher rate of firearms ownership is less safe than one which doesn’t.
BTW, I don’t think Americans need to lose their right to firearms, what they need to recognise is that it needs regulation. Once that occurred, it would be possible to curb firearms getting into the wrong hands. As it is, that is impossible. The US does not suffer from too little firearms control legislation, what it appears to suffer from is an unwillingness on the part of government(s) and firearm owners to enforce the existing laws and accept regulation.
Now, run along. Don’t you have someone or something to shoot? 🙂 🙂
Hey, Randy! I’m at (ironically enough) rightwrite “AT” hot MAIL. Let’s talk among ourselves.
Admin note: Ah, glad to see that the Unwanted Blog has facilitated a love connection…
>The rest of your examples were either flawed (the Nazi is about as “Right” as Hitler was… which by American standards makes him squarely Left), or just plain wrong.
A)Flawed? How?
B)I’m unfamiliar with Leftists (in or out of gov’t) questioning the patriotism of political opponents (“…my friends in the loyal opposition. Yes, I said friend. Yes, I said loyal.” — Bush Sr.) or advocating that an American detained on American soil can be denied due process. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
And incidentally, in re:
>I certainly don’t need the cops showing up or my ISP getting pissy because I’m hosting people advocating murder.
you’re certainly free to ban anyone you like from your blog. But Randy’s “advocacy” of murder of a hypothetical (not identified, individual) person is no more actionable than were YOU to say “If a future President passed a gun-confiscation bill, I’d kill him.” And by your own logic, “Obama’s” cops wouldn’t be gunning for someone “advocating” murder of a banqueting-before-the-starving, would they?
Still awaiting your denial that you’d win food by force of arms were YOU starving. And while on the subject, may I assume that were you crippled, unable to provide for yourself by ANY means, you’d commit suicide rather than receive Social Security disability?
> I’m unfamiliar with Leftists (in or out of gov’t) questioning the patriotism of political opponents
Two seconds on Google:
Henry Waxman, author of the bill, accused Republicans of “rooting against the country … even rooting against the world.”
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) said it was “un-American” for senators to have voted against approving a bailout of troubled automakers last night
PELOSI: I thought it was very unpatriotic of them not to show up, not to show up, in some ways, boycott the meetings earlier in the week.
And so on.
> or advocating that an American detained on American soil can be denied due process.
Talk to FDR about those of Japanese descent.
> Still awaiting your denial that you’d win food by force of arms were YOU starving.
If I was starving yet armed… the question would have to be asked how much I could get for the “arms” at the local pawn shop. Or are we talking about some sort of post-apocalyptic “The Road” situation?
> And while on the subject, may I assume that were you crippled, unable to provide for yourself by ANY means, you’d commit suicide rather than receive Social Security disability?
Actaully, if free stuff was offered I’d jump at it. Hell, I’m giving serious consideration to getting on welfare *now* and trying to squeeze as much out of it as I legally can. I fully recommend that *everyone* do the same. The more people squeezing the system, the faster it’ll dry up and collapse.