107 replies to this topic

[Raien]

The Second Amendment is a product of the need for self-regulation and you can not predict what will happen in the future or what circumstances may arise. Self-regulation does not mean anything if it does not have teeth to back it up, whether the teeth be voting and political activism or (in worst case scenario) weapons.

I may not be able to predict what will happen in the future, but I can use logic and hindsight to determine what will not happen. For example, I can determine that Barack Obama will not run outside of the White House naked singing "It's a Beautiful Morning." I can also determine that we won't get attacked by space aliens.

Of course, you could respond, "You cannot know for certain that Barack Obama will not run outside of the White House nakes singing "It's a Beautiful Morning". Anything is possible." You could also argue, "We must prepare ourselves for alien invasions because it is possible that they could come and seek to destroy humanity".

To which I point out that it is not practical to think of the world in terms of certainty. Not only is it not possible to respond to every eventuality, but it has significant consequences on our state of mind. Imagine how Obama would feel if his department were constantly on guard to prevent him from running outside of the White House naked singing "It's a Beautiful Morning". Now imagine how people might react if they were told a government takeover could be a serious threat, even though such an event would be next to impossible in today's world.

If there is a 0.00001% chance of a government takeover due to self-regulation, that tiny insignificant chance is not worth preparing for. It's not practical for people to get worked up and frightened about. I personally believe it can be destructive to people's state of mind. Even if it's just one man getting unhinged and going on a killing spree, that loss of life could have been prevented if he wasn't encouraged to be afraid of a non-existent threat.

[darkravenntk]

The Second Amendment is a product of the need for self-regulation and you can not predict what will happen in the future or what circumstances may arise. Self-regulation does not mean anything if it does not have teeth to back it up, whether the teeth be voting and political activism or (in worst case scenario) weapons.

I may not be able to predict what will happen in the future, but I can use logic and hindsight to determine what will not happen. For example, I can determine that Barack Obama will not run outside of the White House naked singing "It's a Beautiful Morning." I can also determine that we won't get attacked by space aliens.

Of course, you could respond, "You cannot know for certain that Barack Obama will not run outside of the White House nakes singing "It's a Beautiful Morning". Anything is possible." You could also argue, "We must prepare ourselves for alien invasions because it is possible that they could come and seek to destroy humanity".

To which I point out that it is not practical to think of the world in terms of certainty. Not only is it not possible to respond to every eventuality, but it has significant consequences on our state of mind. Imagine how Obama would feel if his department were constantly on guard to prevent him from running outside of the White House naked singing "It's a Beautiful Morning". Now imagine how people might react if they were told a government takeover could be a serious threat, even though such an event would be next to impossible in today's world.

If there is a 0.00001% chance of a government takeover due to self-regulation, that tiny insignificant chance is not worth preparing for. It's not practical for people to get worked up and frightened about. I personally believe it can be destructive to people's state of mind. Even if it's just one man getting unhinged and going on a killing spree, that loss of life could have been prevented if he wasn't encouraged to be afraid of a non-existent threat.

...You seem to think that people don't already know that the Second Amendment is there.

"Logic and hindsight." Sure! You could use your logic to explain away a current protection and forget all about it, until you need it. Then you can use hindsight!

Don't worry, there is a 0.00001% chance of government takeover due to self-regulation, therefore we do not need the First Amendment, we can just fix it all up on voting day! It's not practical for people to get worked up over issues, and with the removal of free speech, they won't have the chance to go to activist meetings and get worked up! It's foolproof!

You can't stop people from going crazy and killing. Or maybe we should have somehow nurtured Charles Manson away from his fears of Helter Skelter. OH NO! We should have stopped Leon Frank Czolgosz from participating in Anarchist ideals. Ah! Don't worry, the Titanic is the apex of nautical engineering, it can't sink. Who needs all those lifeboats? And Lee Harvey Oswald (if you believe it was him), was totally our fault, we should have adapted to his hatred of American society and became more Russian so he wouldn't have gotten so angry!

Edited by darkravenntk, 11 March 2009 - 09:45 PM.

[Raien]

Don't worry, there is a 0.00001% chance of government takeover due to self-regulation, therefore we do not need the First Amendment, we can just fix it all up on voting day! It's not practical for people to get worked up over issues, and with the removal of free speech, they won't have the chance to go to activist meetings and get worked up! It's foolproof!

Wow, that was a terrible analogy. And devoid of context, as usual.

1) Free speech has been proven to have a powerful impact for human rights in the 20th century. It has always been a beacon for moral responsibility, it was in many ways responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it has brought down many significant infringements on the rights of civilians. And of all the countries that have free speech, the USA is the country that has held it most dearly to the people's hearts; encouraging it strongly in the people who eventually become government officials.

2) Guns have been proven impotent as a basis for maintaining human rights in the 20th century. Civilian militias neither prevent a dictator from taking control, nor do they make a dictator think twice about taking control. No country has ever idealised guns as a basis for human rights, nor envied another country with guns. All guns do is act as a neon sign saying "Kill me, please!"

I repeat, there will never be a government takeover in the United States, and free speech is primarly responsible for that fact. If you take away guns, there will still never be a government takeover because of free speech (just look at all the countries that have gun control, and oh look! Moral responsibility). But if you take away free speech (which will never happen because of free speech), then guns will do fuck-all for protecting you from tyranny.

Edited by Raien, 12 March 2009 - 07:34 AM.

[Dizzy]

We can now establish that there will never be a government take-over due to increasing moral responsibility and constantly increasing practices of self-regulation.

Because we all know that we can fully and whole-heartedly trust the flawless good nature of politicians and presidents...



Sorry Raien, it's going to take me a long while before I can state my rebuttal regarding your reply to the statistics I posted previously in the argument.

And I have a juicy bit for the direction you're taking Dark, here.

For now, I'm stepping down from the debate.

I'll be back during Spring Break, when things slow down for me (and if this debate is still going).

[Raien]

Because we all know that we can fully and whole-heartedly trust the flawless good nature of politicians and presidents...

We can trust that when politicians misuse their political powers, they will get publically reprimanded and sometimes even prosecuted.

[CID Farwin]

So why aren't all politicians in jail, then?

[Raien]

So why aren't all politicians in jail, then?

I said "sometimes". I am well aware of the fact that most politicians who commit crimes do not get prosecuted, and I think that is unfair. But what is more relevant to this discussion is that the politicians who commit crimes get removed from their positions of power, in order to prevent them from continuing to abuse their positions, and thankfully this repremanding is much more consistent than the prosecutions.

[darkravenntk]

Don't worry, there is a 0.00001% chance of government takeover due to self-regulation, therefore we do not need the First Amendment, we can just fix it all up on voting day! It's not practical for people to get worked up over issues, and with the removal of free speech, they won't have the chance to go to activist meetings and get worked up! It's foolproof!

Wow, that was a terrible analogy. And devoid of context, as usual.

1) Free speech has been proven to have a powerful impact for human rights in the 20th century. It has always been a beacon for moral responsibility, it was in many ways responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it has brought down many significant infringements on the rights of civilians. And of all the countries that have free speech, the USA is the country that has held it most dearly to the people's hearts; encouraging it strongly in the people who eventually become government officials.

2) Guns have been proven impotent as a basis for maintaining human rights in the 20th century. Civilian militias neither prevent a dictator from taking control, nor do they make a dictator think twice about taking control. No country has ever idealised guns as a basis for human rights, nor envied another country with guns. All guns do is act as a neon sign saying "Kill me, please!"

I repeat, there will never be a government takeover in the United States, and free speech is primarly responsible for that fact. If you take away guns, there will still never be a government takeover because of free speech (just look at all the countries that have gun control, and oh look! Moral responsibility). But if you take away free speech (which will never happen because of free speech), then guns will do fuck-all for protecting you from tyranny.

1) Free speech can be taken away, and without weapons, you can not take it back. You can say all you want, but, "Actions speak louder than words." What are you going to do if the government stops listening to what you have to say and you do not possess a second option? Quite a condundrum, isn't it?

2) Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."

- Aristotle


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

- Adolf Hitler

"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"

- Adolf Hitler

Give me facts on that statement, "Civilian militias neither prevent a dictator from taking control, nor do they make a dictator think twice about taking control."

They will do fuck-all. If you can't back up your words, then you're wasting breath.

[Arturo]

Give me facts on that statement, "Civilian militias neither prevent a dictator from taking control, nor do they make a dictator think twice about taking control."

I have given facts pages ago. Franco took control over the whole country with half of the Spanish army and the help of Germany and Italy although the Spanish Republic had given arms to the civilians.

[Raien]

EDIT: Just read my following response to CID Farwin.

Edited by Raien, 13 March 2009 - 12:15 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Dark, my words are backed up by what's going on today. You can only back up your arguments by referencing hundred year old societies that had completely different concepts of moral understanding and self-regulation. You do not understand the complicated changes in social context over the years that have passed, so yeah, you're absolutely right that I am wasting my breath.

And his words are backed up by the entirety of known history. You may be looking at what you see today, but the only way to accurately predict what will happen tomorrow is to look to the past. Because, y'know, the old cliche: history repeats itself.

I understand that you seem to think that we're somehow more enlightened than people were back then(even two hundred years ago, you really think that humanity changes that drastically over two hundred years?), that just because we've made some technological and social progress that people are different somehow, and something like this will never happen. It's people like you who in your pride think we're above and impervious to these things that are the exact reason why they happen.

Does a civilian militia with guns stand a chance against a well-trained army? Probably not.

But they stand a heck of a lot better of a chance than they would without guns. (which, believe it, would happen. I would still sign up for that without guns.)

The fact is, the second amendment is one of our rights guaranteed by the constitution. The slippery slope that most people probably don't realize is that if they took away one of our expressed and clear rights in the constitution, what's to stop them from taking away the others?

[Dizzy]

Those statistics are interesting, Enjeru, as the actual drop in gun-related crimes coincides with a large government-driven gun amnesty in 2003.
So perhaps (and more sensible, now I think about it), if we want to lower gun crime, the government is going to have to make a consistent effort to keep guns out of criminals' hands.
In that context, why shouldn't such schemes work in America? American criminals aren't alien from British criminals; as long as the schemes have the right direction, they should have similar results.

Now to uh... continue this thing. If I can manage to be coherent enough. Here goes.

That's the point I was trying to make.
You can try to ban arms and even attempt to disarm a populace by enacting full-scale amnesty, but these efforts will not eliminate guns from entering the nation.
Also, in by enacting a full-scale gun amnesty, you are merely disarming the law abiding.
With or without a gun-ban, gun crimes will still exist, and they will even be more devastating due to the populace's general vulnerability.

The biggest problem, when it comes to regulation, is that the government, when funded, is only capable of doing so much.
You know this.

It can't police every crevice of a large providence with many boarders and millions of people 24/7, and to assume that it is capable of doing so is standing proof of a civilian's sloth.
So how can we keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

We simply cannot.
Tactically speaking, and fundamentally speaking, it is impossible to disarm a criminal.
On the other hand, disarming the lawful is as easy as taking candy from a baby. And the statistics I posted proved this.

So clearly, because such schemes (if we were to assume crime prevention) are not working for Britain (and we are now just starting to see this fact), they will most definitely not work for the US.
Would I be willing to forfeit my rights to bare arms in order to see such a 'test run' begin (and end the same) in the US?
Hell no.

My point:
Creating a safe nation is not solely the government's responsibility.
It is also left to the responsibility of the people on a micro scale.
The best way to prevent crime is to reach out to troubled people- youth and adults alike; to create and support self-help organizations and outreach programs, and to establish a more intimate relationship with your neighbors and the police in your neighborhood.
As for the criminals who obtain guns, impose a stiffer punishment for when they get caught; that is all you can do.

So, I've come to the conclusion; the only reason why gun rights would be evoked is to allow a government to gain better control of its people.
Crime prevention is a poor excuse.
Hence, it is also the people's responsibility to keep the government in check -- best done with access to arms.
Just like in the past, on hindsight, there will come a time when voices will not work.
After all, history has this nasty habit of repeating itself in the most awkward of locations.

I may not be able to predict what will happen in the future, but I can use logic and hindsight to determine what will not happen.
For example, I can determine that Barack Obama will not run outside of the White House naked singing "It's a Beautiful Morning."
I can also determine that we won't get attacked by space aliens.

I fail to realize how Obama's nudity and a zero chance for extraterrestrial alien invasions can be associated to a more realistic and more plausible event such as governmental control.


Just because Obama happens to be in the White House, that doesn't mean everything will be hunky-dory.
And just because people have a right to 'sometimes' reprimand and 'sometimes' prosecute a political figure head, it doesn't mean the will wholly have that ability.

It seems to me that you feel a great sense of safety because Obama was elected president.
And that... that's something very troublesome to me.
While I will not lie: I have high hopes for him. But I will not sit idly by and place full trust in his intentions, similarly to all other presidents elected in the White House.

Your words are merely backed by simple blanket statements.
I can't see how current events and crime rates in gun-less countries could even let your argument hold water.

Pro-regulation would be the ultimate way to improve gun control in the US.
A full disarmament will prove to be disasterous.

Edited: GAWD THAT NYQUIL. *hiccup*

Edited by Enjeru, 13 March 2009 - 11:09 AM.

[Raien]

And his words are backed up by the entirety of known history. You may be looking at what you see today, but the only way to accurately predict what will happen tomorrow is to look to the past. Because, y'know, the old cliche: history repeats itself.

History does repeat itself, but people have a habit of ignoring the logic and subcontext behind this repetition. History doesn't just repeat itself willy-nilly or because God just got bored. History repeats itself because different societies develop independently from one another. This is best demonstrated by the fact that history never repeats itself in the same place. If you look at different nations independently, you can see the same social developments taking place in each of them. For example, nearly all European nations with a monarch have gone through variations of a general process of "Monarch > War/Revolution > Attempted Democracy > Dictatorship > War/Revolution > Democracy". A few examples:

England: King Charles I > Civil War > Parliament > Oliver Cromwell > Glorious Revolution > Democracy

France: King Louis > French Revolution > Robespierre > Napoleon > Revolution > Democracy

Spain: Royal Family > Spanish Republics > Spanish Civil War > Franco > Collapse of the Franco regime > Democracy

Germany: Kaiser Wilhelm > First World War > Weimar Government > Hitler > Second World War > Democracy

Russia: Czar > Communist Revolution > Communist Party > Communist Dictators > Collapse of the Soviet Union > Democracy

Notice that there has not been an internal war in any of these countries since democracy was established, regardless of the actual date democracy was established. The obvious conclusion from this is that the establishment of democracy is incredibly significant to the end of nation in-fighting, which helps cement my argument that free speech is much more influential as a means to self-regulation than guns are. But most people don't notice things like this, so they just assume that there's no logic needed and history is always liable to repetition regardless of context. This is wrong; there is always an identifiable reason for why repetition happens in history. And this is why just referring to history's repetition without context is an inaccurate way to determine the potential of future events.

Now, because America began as a colony, not an independent nation, the events that have taken place in European nations cannot be expected to take place in America. But the current stage of America's social development is equivalent to a post-democratic European nation; most likely because the colonists inherited their social understanding from England's post-democratic progress. In the last two hundred years, the United States has never come close to a position where it has ever been threatened by a government takeover, just like England. Within this context, there is practically no chance of a government takeover in the United States or Europe.

My point:
Creating a safe nation is not solely the government's responsibility.
It is also left to the responsibility of the people on a micro scale.
The best way to prevent crime is to reach out to troubled people- youth and adults alike; to create and support self-help organizations and outreach programs, and to establish a more intimate relationship with your neighbors and the police in your neighborhood.
As for the criminals who obtain guns, impose a stiffer punishment for when they get caught; that is all you can do.

So, I've come to the conclusion; the only reason why gun rights would be evoked is to allow a government to gain better control of its people.
Crime prevention is a poor excuse.
Hence, it is also the people's responsibility to keep the government in check -- best done with access to arms.
Just like in the past, on hindsight, there will come a time when voices will not work.
After all, history has this nasty habit of repeating itself in the most awkward of locations.

I completely agree with your first paragraph. I completely disagree with your second paragraph; it's a complete conspiracy theory and I have addressed the "history repeating itself" argument in response to CID Farwin.

Pro-regulation would be the ultimate way to improve gun control in the US.
A full disarmament will prove to be disasterous.

In light of the statistics you provided a while back, I will agree with this. I still call bullshit on the theory that the government will attempt a takeover. As pointed out, Bush has come as far as anyone has ever done to infringe upon the rights of the people, and now this current administration is in the process of reprimanding him. That is exactly what we should expect from a government; professionalism and moral responsibility. That, more than anything else, is why I trust Obama. He's not playing the game of extremist partisan politics that Bush (and dare I say it, Hitler, Lenin and Franco) was playing to get support. He has tried to unify different elements in the country, regardless of his success rate, and I find that act much more encouraging than what has come before him.

Edited by Raien, 13 March 2009 - 06:01 PM.

[CID Farwin]

And his words are backed up by the entirety of known history. You may be looking at what you see today, but the only way to accurately predict what will happen tomorrow is to look to the past. Because, y'know, the old cliche: history repeats itself.

History does repeat itself, but people have a habit of ignoring the logic and subcontext behind this repetition. History doesn't just repeat itself willy-nilly or because God just got bored. History repeats itself because different societies develop independently from one another. This is best demonstrated by the fact that history never repeats itself in the same place. If you look at different nations independently, you can see the same social developments taking place in each of them. For example, nearly all European nations with a monarch have gone through variations of a general process of "Monarch > War/Revolution > Attempted Democracy > Dictatorship > War/Revolution > Democracy". A few examples:

England: King Charles I > Civil War > Parliament > Oliver Cromwell > Glorious Revolution > Democracy

France: King Louis > French Revolution > Robespierre > Napoleon > Revolution > Democracy

Spain: Royal Family > Spanish Republics > Spanish Civil War > Franco > Collapse of the Franco regime > Democracy

Germany: Kaiser Wilhelm > First World War > Weimar Government > Hitler > Second World War > Democracy

Russia: Czar > Communist Revolution > Communist Party > Communist Dictators > Collapse of the Soviet Union > Democracy

Notice that there has not been an internal war in any of these countries since democracy was established, regardless of the actual date democracy was established. The obvious conclusion from this is that the establishment of democracy is incredibly significant to the end of nation in-fighting, which helps cement my argument that free speech is much more influential as a means to self-regulation than guns are. But most people don't notice things like this, so they just assume that there's no logic needed and history is always liable to repetition regardless of context. This is wrong; there is always an identifiable reason for why repetition happens in history. And this is why just referring to history's repetition without context is an inaccurate way to determine the potential of future events.

Now, because America began as a colony, not an independent nation, the events that have taken place in European nations cannot be expected to take place in America. But the current stage of America's social development is equivalent to a post-democratic European nation; most likely because the colonists inherited their social understanding from England's post-democratic progress. In the last two hundred years, the United States has never come close to a position where it has ever been threatened by a government takeover, just like England. Within this context, there is practically no chance of a government takeover in the United States or Europe.

I want you to listen very carefully: I am looking at context. Maybe this blows your mind, Raian. Maybe, like in the Zelda section, people see things differently than you.

So what comes after Democracy in your little progression chart, there? A utopia brought about by the great lord Obama? Maybe because It's because of a certain Book of my Religion, but I whole heartedly disagree with your seeming attitude that Democracy is the end-all be-all of Government. The context I see (again, thanks to that certain Book) is that from democracy comes two paths:

Democracy->Invasion by Foreign power->Captivity(Foreign Government takeover)

Democracy->Corruption->Rise of "Secret Combinations"->Government takeover(usually instigating Monarchy)

In today's world, I find option one a little far-fetched.

As for your in-bold: "history never repeats itself in the same place" Government takeovers haven't happened in America.

Your move.

Edited by CID Farwin, 14 March 2009 - 03:20 PM.

[Raien]

Farwin, you've misread my post, arguing against points I never made. Please read this next response a bit more carefully.

So what comes after Democracy in your little progression chart, there? A utopia brought about by the great lord Obama? Maybe because It's because of a certain Book of my Religion, but I whole heartedly disagree with your seeming attitude that Democracy is the end-all be-all of Government.

I never suggested that there would be an end-point to social progression, or that democracy is such an end-point. Democracy was just a specific case to demonstrate the point at which government takeovers have traditionally ceased to occur.

I don't believe in the future existence of utopia. What I believe is that humanity is working towards a general goal of eliminating all conceivable needs and limitations, at which point we will probably develop new goals. Throughout history, limited resources has been one of the most significant limitations for humankind, which is why we have had constant fighting and competition for control of those resources. But as resources have become less limited, and first-world society has become increasingly affluent as a consequence, we find ourselves with less reason to fight and compete as our ancestors have done. This explains why wealth and power has been constantly redistributed from a wealthy elite to general society throughout history. Society is constantly moving left, and Obama's reforms are continuing evidence of that movement.

The context I see (again, thanks to that certain Book) is that from democracy comes two paths:

Democracy->Invasion by Foreign power->Captivity(Foreign Government takeover)

Democracy->Corruption->Rise of "Secret Combinations"->Government takeover(usually instigating Monarchy)

In today's world, I find option one a little far-fetched.

1) Can you provide examples?
2) Can you explain in more detail why these rules are true, and how they could apply to the context of the United States?

As for your in-bold: "history never repeats itself in the same place" Government takeovers haven't happened in America.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I already addressed this exact point.

Societies all move in one singular direction, and yet societies move independently from one another, which is why we see the same patterns of events appearing in different countries at different times. This is what creates the impression that history repeats itself. But you know how when someone gets hurt by a flame, they learn not to touch it? Society is like that; it learns from social upheaval as to what works and what doesn't work. It's pretty much a perfect analogue for evolution; bad ideas die, good ideas dominate society.

Now, the United States began as a colony, which means its founders were constituents of England. As such, they inherited their social understanding from what their English ancestors learned. So when the time came for America to assert its independence, the Founding Fathers were already in a perfect position to enact democracy straight away. They didn't need to go through the processes that Europe did because they had already learned from it.

So let's summarise this:
1) History repeats itself because all societies move in one direction (forward).
2) History never repeats itself in the same place because society learns from past events.
3) History does not necessarily repeat itself in every place if experiences are shared between different locations.

Edited by Raien, 14 March 2009 - 05:02 PM.

[Selena]

Okay, now that we've technically moved away from the "strategic" discussion about how guns are(n't) effective in overthrowing an entity as powerful as the United States Army, I feel safer to post again. And, curiously, I'm now going to end up fighting both sides. Go figure. This is the downside of always trying to walk the middle ground, I suppose.

(While the discussion is now shifting a bit, it's still relevant to the original argument, so don't worry about any of this being off topic.)

--

I don't believe in the future existence of utopia. What I believe is that humanity is working towards a general goal of eliminating all needs and limitations. Limited resources is one of the most significant limitations for humankind, which is why we have had fighting and competition for them throughout history. But as resources have become less limited, and first-world society has become increasingly affluent as a consequence, we find ourselves with less reason to fight and compete as our ancestors have done. This explains why wealth and power has been constantly redistributed from a wealthy elite to general society throughout history.

Resources are not less limited. I don't understand how someone can even suggest that. The first world may be quite plush right now, but the rest of the world is not. Perhaps in part because of the first world hording all the resources. The more humans there are on Earth, the less free resources are available. That's the simple fact of the matter. Complicating things is the fact that most vital resources are claimed by powerful nations and nations are not obligated to sell their resources to anyone else. They just do so to make a profit. If those natural resources start drying up (as limited resources inevitably will), then you can bet on those nations to protect what resources they have left, which can easily trigger a conflict.

Oil is mostly owned by the Middle East, and their control over it has led to more than one spike in political tension around the world. And, should Gazprom be so inclined to stop selling natural gas to Europe, that would trigger a fairly serious crisis. In addition, some nations do not have the geography necessary to mass produce enough agricultural food to meet the needs of their overgrown population, and they become dependent on imported food simply to get by.

Couple that agricultural food crisis in with the fact that worldwide fish numbers have radically dropped in recent decades and the equally rapid loss of rural land has reduced the world's population of deer and other fuzzy edibles, and some nations could face very serious problems.

Resources are extremely limited. And more so by the day.

Redistribution simply means that instead of one guy having way too much, everyone gets a little piece of the pie. The actual number of basic resources available to humanity is still on the steady decline. Meaning your little piece of the pie is likely to get all the smaller if the world population continues to grow at an exponential rate. And, one could argue, that could eventually trigger individuals going back to hording as much as they can, effectively breaking down the 'balance' of redistribution. Some (admittedly crazy) folk are already doing it in case the economic crisis takes a turn for the worse. But crazy folk outnumber sane folk by a large margin.


World Wars have presently been replaced by World Cups, but that doesn't mean the age of warfare is over. It could easily be on hiatus.


To say that our present age of peace is going to be at all long lasting is not taking all of history into consideration. There have been many 'calm' moments in history where war did not play a major role. We've only been without a major conflict for about 60 years. That's a brief flicker in time. Too brief to sit back and think our cushy lifestyles will last for another century, much less that it signals the end of global conflict because society has 'progressed.' Democracy is all well and good, but it doesn't guarantee that your nation will be stable or last forever. Democracies or democratic republics really came into favor starting from the 1700's. That's 300 years of democratic rule, barring a few hitches here and there. That's still not very long.

The longest lived and largest nation-states have been empires. And whether democratic influence was there or not is irrelevant, because the emperor still takes precedence and, especially in the case of Rome, it was easy enough to see that the senate was just the emperor's plaything. Rome remains one of the most influential nations ever to exist, and was around much longer than any of our modern democracies. Oddly enough, for all its corruption, both Rome and Greece remain the biggest inspirations in western government. Which mostly goes to show that no government style is perfect, and a democracy is only free of corruption if you're playing Civilization.

Superpowers tend to destroy themselves. And, every time they go out, it ushers in a period of change and even periods of society going backwards. You argued me on that last time it came up, but I still don't see how Europe being ruled by illiterate bearded warlords instead of well educated Romans was an step forward. It took centuries to get back to where things were, and centuries still for the western world to return to democracy.

You're naturally going to ask me to apply this to the modern era, but I can't. No one can, because no one can predict the future. But if history is any indicator, no superpower lasts forever, and the period you've come to celebrate as the "growth of humanity beyond war" is actually a very slim piece of humanity's timeline. You might be optimistic to a fault about civilization.



Still, that doesn't mean the idea of using guns to destroy tanks any less ludicrous. At least in the way it's been presented so far. If you really want to keep the government in check and have your citizens combat ready, waiting to join a militia at the last moment is ending your revolution before it begins. Switzerland's model, where every able bodied man (and volunteer females) goes in for professional training and then go in for routine evaluation to make sure they are combat ready at all times. And they're allowed to keep their guns. As far as I know, Switzerland has low gun crime. But again, they're all professionally trained. Not handed a gun at fourteen and told to go shoot cans/targets behind the house. Which is the case with many American gun enthusiasts.

It's interesting to look at gun culture around the world. Many nations own guns. Offhand, I know that the Scandinavian nations have a lot of guns in their population (mostly hunting). But there's very low gun crime there. Just good ol' fashioned fist fights and stabbings. Which, while still nasty, are not necessarily as fatal as getting shot in the head in a drive by. The conclusion? Americans seem off their rockers.

[Raien]

Resources are not less limited. I don't understand how someone can even suggest that. The first world may be quite plush right now, but the rest of the world is not. Perhaps in part because of the first world hording all the resources. The more humans there are on Earth, the less free resources are available. That's the simple fact of the matter. Complicating things is the fact that most vital resources are claimed by powerful nations and nations are not obligated to sell their resources to anyone else. They just do so to make a profit. If those natural resources start drying up (as limited resources inevitably will), then you can bet on those nations to protect what resources they have left, which can easily trigger a conflict.

Oil is mostly owned by the Middle East, and their control over it has led to more than one spike in political tension around the world. And, should Gazprom be so inclined to stop selling natural gas to Europe, that would trigger a fairly serious crisis. In addition, some nations do not have the geography necessary to mass produce enough agricultural food to meet the needs of their overgrown population, and they become dependent on imported food simply to get by.

Couple that agricultural food crisis in with the fact that worldwide fish numbers have radically dropped in recent decades and the equally rapid loss of rural land has reduced the world's population of deer and other fuzzy edibles, and some nations could face very serious problems.

Resources are extremely limited. And more so by the day.

I think you're over-exaggerating here, but you're right technically. Resources are no less limited. But we are using resources more efficiently, which was the point I was trying to make. Right now, a lot of effort is going into finding alternative resources to those that we currently use, such as computers for paper and electricity for oil in cars. And we're finding more efficient ways of farming, including the technology to re-create specific climates for growing food no matter where we are in the world. And this is all reflected in increased living standards, with which most people are better off than the wealthiest people were hundreds of years ago.

Redistribution simply means that instead of one guy having way too much, everyone gets a little piece of the pie. The actual number of basic resources available to humanity is still on the steady decline. Meaning your little piece of the pie is likely to get all the smaller if the world population continues to grow at an exponential rate.

Taking into account that changing technology allows more efficient uses of resources, I don't agree that the "pie" is shrinking. And I don't agree that the population is going to necessarily increase at an exponential rate. The reason why populations in first-world countries are rising right now is because of increased longetivity and increasing immigration. Declining birth rates fail to keep up with the other two factors combined. But what happens when every country becomes affluent enough that immigration declines, and yet birth rates continue to decline?

To say that our present age of peace is going to be at all long lasting is not taking all of history into consideration. There have been many 'calm' moments in history where war did not play a major role. We've only been without a major conflict for about 60 years. That's a brief flicker in time. Too brief to sit back and think our cushy lifestyles will last for another century, much less that it signals the end of global conflict because society has 'progressed.' Democracy is all well and good, but it doesn't guarantee that your nation will be stable or last forever. Democracies or democratic republics really came into favor starting from the 1700's. That's 300 years of democratic rule, barring a few hitches here and there. That's still not very long.

The longest lived and largest nation-states have been empires. And whether democratic influence was there or not is irrelevant, because the emperor still takes precedence and, especially in the case of Rome, it was easy enough to see that the senate was just the emperor's plaything. Rome remains one of the most influential nations ever to exist, and was around much longer than any of our modern democracies. Oddly enough, for all its corruption, both Rome and Greece remain the biggest inspirations in western government. Which mostly goes to show that no government style is perfect, and a democracy is only free of corruption if you're playing Civilization.

Superpowers tend to destroy themselves. And, every time they go out, it ushers in a period of change and even periods of society going backwards. You argued me on that last time it came up, but I still don't see how Europe being ruled by illiterate bearded warlords instead of well educated Romans was an step forward. It took centuries to get back to where things were, and centuries still for the western world to return to democracy.

You're naturally going to ask me to apply this to the modern era, but I can't. No one can, because no one can predict the future. But if history is any indicator, no superpower lasts forever, and the period you've come to celebrate as the "growth of humanity beyond war" is actually a very slim piece of humanity's timeline. You might be optimistic to a fault about civilization.

There's a very large difference between empires and superpowers, and two thousand years of human history. You're making the same points that CID Farwin and Dark are making; that because something happened in history, it is liable to repetition regardless of context. I have done my best in the last two posts to provide specific explanations as to why some patterns have occurred in history, whereas other patterns have not. I have yet to see anything of the sort from anyone else in this topic. Grand statements such as "superpowers tend to destroy themselves" are hard to judge considering you haven't explained why such events have occurred before and why they should happen to the United States. They don't happen by magic, assuming they happen at all. They happen because of specific cause-and-effect.

Edited by Raien, 15 March 2009 - 07:35 AM.

[Egann]

Switzerland's model, where every able bodied man (and volunteer females) goes in for professional training and then go in for routine evaluation to make sure they are combat ready at all times. And they're allowed to keep their guns. As far as I know, Switzerland has low gun crime. But again, they're all professionally trained. Not handed a gun at fourteen and told to go shoot cans/targets behind the house. Which is the case with many American gun enthusiasts.

I can speak from experience when I say that this isn't exactly the case. The most difficult and complicated aspects of using a firearm are literally cleaning it, and using it safely (the latter is because there are thousands of different safety mechanisms, and they can be a pain to figure out safely.) While learning to shoot as well as a military sniper is out of the question, a good student who is determined to learn how to shoot can learn to competently handle a firearm overnight, even starting from nothing.

Guns are not like swords, when it took years to learn the muscle-memories. Pretty much all it takes to handle a gun well is knowing it's sight-picture and not to slap the trigger because it will throw your aim off. There's really not that much to it.

(Things get a little more complicated when you start talking about handling flashlights along with a firearm and building clearing can get really complex, but it still isn't anything which a person can't do competently after a single day.)