Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
This is wandering away from legal issues--which have pretty much been explained, seems to me.
Art
Art
Taco Cabana -- San Antonio, TX -- No Guns Sign
- Thread starter ForeignDude
- Start date
- Status
The one thing I don't understand in all of this is... WHY would anyone eat in a Taco Cabana in Texas, where I can guarantee that within 500 yards of any Taco Cabana there are at least 3 REAL Tex-Mex restaurants that serve food at least twice as good (and probably for half the price) as a Taco Cabana? Add in the whole 30.06 issue, and they mystery of Taco Cabana's continued avoidance of Chapter 11 only deepens.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
No personal criticism intended, TwitchALot. I'm begining to realize that you really believe what you're saying and are doing the very best you can with what you have. You might want to develop a vocabulary and comprehension adequate to the task you've attempted. An "appeal to ridicule" is not what I've been doing. High school sophomores founder in these waters and it's not a pretty sight.
It's rather interesting to see such your arguments in favor of racial discrimination and race wars, and the right of employers to control the lives of employees, because such positions seemed to have gone out of favor a generation or so ago. I hadn't thought there were many people who continued to think that way.
Most people, I thought, wanted to find ways in which people with opposing interests could live together peacefully instead of in constant conflict. But I understand from reading lots of messages posted by gun owners that "compromise" is a dirty word and that the concept is unacceptable to many of them.
But it does seem self destructive for you and other gun owners to support some right of employers to deny Second Amendment rights to their employees. Your reasoning--and theirs--is that the rights of business and property owners trump the Second Amendment.
It will be interesting to see you and the others argue that although the Second Amendment prohibits the Congress from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it's okay for anyone else to do it. You and they might want to get together and file an amicus brief supporting the District of Columbia in its fight to continue infringing Second Amendment rights.
It's hard, though, to respect your arguments when they're based on ignorance of common knowledge such as the long and ongoing fights of coal miners against mine owners. For example those six Utah coal miners died in the mine collapse, as did two of those who attempted to rescue them. The mine owner's method of "retreat mining" (blowing the mine roof down to expose more coal) has been criticized as inherently unsafe, the lengthy list of the mine owner's safety violations is public knowledge, there is now a growing scandal around the regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the miners' safety, but the company continues to maintain that its operation is safe for the coal miners. They don't seem to be doing any of that compromising you said they would do if their business became unprofitable. Perhaps that's because it is and always has been profitable for coal mine opereators to behave as this company does. I know your theory says they don't behave that way, so perhaps they only behave that way in reality and not in your head.
TwitchALot
Member
RH said:
Appeal to ridicule is exactly what you’re doing. You’re strawmanning and otherwise making up arguments and countering them when I’ve made no such arguments. You’re misconstruing my position, intentionally or unintentionally. Either way, that’s not really my concern- the point is that you don’t have a valid argument, or valid counters to my arguments. You’re largely not even talking about my arguments, for that matter.
Employers do not have the right to control the lives of employees unless the employee surrenders that right in the working contract.
And yes, there aren’t many people who think this way anymore. Why do you think the freedoms in this country have gone down the toilet?
If anyone is ignorant about the matter, it is you (if you’ll look up, you’ll see why appeal to ridicule is exactly what you’re doing). Property rights and constitutional rights do not conflict (well, they’re not supposed to anyway). You construing the Constitution to be a limit on individual rights is almost as negligent as saying that the Second Amendment protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. The fact that you’ve failed to respond to my assertions is rather telling about the matter. If you believe the constitutional rights are indeed a limit on individual power, and that these rights trump property rights, you can have no objection to the scenarios I made in that post. You MUST let me in your home, regardless of who I am, because I have a right to assemble. You MUST let me shoot up your home (so long as I don’t shoot any of you, or point the weapon at you or anyone else) because I have a right to keep and bear arms. You MUST let me use your guns for the same reason (I have a right to keep and bear arms). You MUST let me eat your food and drink your beer, soda, whatever it may be, because I have a right to life, and I need to eat to live. You MUST let me say whatever I want in your house, whenever I want, during my stay there, because I have the right to speak. So on.
The truth is, however, that you mustn’t do any of these things. Because conveniently enough, the Constitution applies to governments, and this can be verified by an education on the Constitution and our history, or otherwise reading things like the writings of John Locke and the Declaration of Independence, and the opinions of our Founding Fathers (and you’ll find the value they placed on property rights in there too), and other documents. The truth is that the Constitution was never meant to limit individual rights. For if they did, then you cannot object to any of the scenarios I mentioned above, or any of the ones I could certainly come up with. If they did, you would have no right to stop someone from entering your home at night without your permission (in fact, they would have the right to be there). You would have no right to stop them from taking your guns, or keeping you up by watching your TV. Why? For the reasons I mentioned- the right to peaceably assemble, the right to speak, the right to keep and bear arms, so on. The ones that supposedly trump property rights (the same property rights protected in the Constitution, that is).
If anything, your arguments (if they can be called that, since they don’t address mine or really defend anything with substantial evidence or commentary) are based on great ignorance. Not only have you misconstrued the concepts of freedom and liberty along with the Constitution and property rights, you’ve misconstrued the concept of individual responsibility. Furthermore, your claim of MY ignorance is nothing short of unfounded. I’ve demonstrated, and acknowledged, that coal miners have been fighting for their rights for a long time. I’ve also demonstrated, and acknowledged, that the mine owners had no right to infringe upon the rights of their employees (in the past, present, or in a free society). The most they have the right to do is kick them off or fire them. They have no right to force the miners to work. And further still, I’ve acknowledged and demonstrated that the government was not the solution to the problem- they even helped beat and shoot miners. Now, you can construe my position to mean that I believe the property owners had every right to beat, shoot, and force the miners to work, but that doesn’t make it any more true. It’s just another straw man.
But let me address your case here. The first thing you say is that there is a growing scandal around the regulatory agency responsible for mining safety. And your solution is to come up with more regulatory agencies, or otherwise impose more regulations?
Let me ask you something- did the miners who worked in that mine know the danger they were in? Were they informed about the possibilities and causes of death that may occur while in the work place? Were they forced to work there if any such danger was present and known to them?
The truth is that these miners accepted the pay, they accepted the job, and they accepted the dangers of that job. And they did so voluntarily. Such is the case with other professions, like police officers. They know they’re going into a dangerous profession. They know that they, or their families, could pay the price for accepting the job. They could die, be robbed, beaten- any number of things on the job and off. Yet they choose to do so.
And if it so happens that a police officer is shot on the job, should the state, or the police agency, be fined or regulated because police officers are doing such dangerous work? Should they be forced to provide armored personnel carriers and tanks to protect the officers from all possible dangers? Should they be forced to develop or implement robots to do house searches and engage hostiles?
Undoubtedly, you would say yes (or otherwise completely contradict your position). But I say no. I say that the officers know that they’re doing dangerous work, and they accept that risk voluntarily. They accept the possible consequences of their choice, and accept that they may very well die because of what they choose to do for a living. And that if the state, or agency, wishes to buy APC’s and tanks, they may do so- but they should not be forced to do so. They knew the dangers of their job, and they accepted it.
Is their business unprofitable now? If the people really want change, they have to work for it. What has been done? Nothing. To tell you the truth, most people don’t care. They’ll say it’s tragic and shouldn’t have happened, but when it comes down to boycotting the company and its products, writing letters, sending faxes, or otherwise doing anything that could make a difference, they stop short.
If the miners, or the people (or both) really want change, they have to do something about it. They need to band together and let the company know that they will pay if they don’t change. And then, they have to follow through.
See the strawman and near ad hom here?
But to actually address the small argument you have, “my theory” says that they will behave in a manner that increases profits, generally speaking (or behave in a manner that in their mind, will increase profits- it may turn out to be wrong, but the point is that they are trying to increase profits). So, for the record, my theory is downright accurate still. The company is not losing a considerable amount of money over this incident. And as such, they have no reason to change their policy.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
They did. They, through their government that was instituted among us all, told people who wanted to be employers that there are certain rights that cannot be waived. Many of us believe that the RKBA should also be held inviolate, not just by the government, but by others who have the power to oppress.
And, as others have pointed out, we are not talking about private property any more. Businesses and companies that are open to the public do not have the same rights as individuals do. Period.
Bingo! You hit the nail square and drove it in flush. Kudos!
Situations like this are why we need a Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Corporate Personhood. Because you already pay for it in your, doctor and hospital bills, taxes and insurance premiums, that's why. Because all those people who have no insurance, can't afford to go to a doctor, then have to wait until they are truly sick or hurt, then go to the ER and don't pay the bill. Hospitals don't write those costs off, they ask for, and get more tax money, and then charge YOU more when you, me and the rest of the population who does have insurance more money.
Also much of the high costs of American medical care is because our government refuses to impose price controls on the Pharmaceutical companies. Other countries do it, why can't we? And don't tell me the Pharms will go bankrupt, since it seems they have plenty of money to throw at advertising for drugs for sexual enhancement.
Robert A. Heinlein said it best in his very first published story "Lifeline":
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Now about those "straw men" you accused me of creating ....
I don't think I said that my "solution is to come up with more regulatory agencies, or otherwise impose more regulations." Nope, I looked: I didn't say that or anything like it.
I also didn't say the many other things you've represented me as saying so you can have an occasion to knock them down. But you're having so much fun doing it that I feel a little guilty about pointing it out. It might spoil things for you. That's why I haven't pointed out other examples.
So just ignore me. You go on and say what you would like me to have said, then enjoy yourself refuting it. You don't need me for that solitary occupation, and I can't see that a partner could possibly increase your obvious pleasure in it. It's a bit embarrassing to watch, but I've seen worse.
About one of the silly things you've said, you're correct. I haven't discussed all your arguments (although I have discussed a few), but my motives have been benign. Despite what you might think, I am merciful and I have a sense of pity. It's sufficient, I think, to travel with some of your reasoning down the paths it creates. You create the paths. I merely travel them. Your assertions do tend to be ridiculous because you don't check yourself against where those assertions inevitably lead and whether their ultimate direction goes anywhere a sensible person should want to go.
But despite your continued assertion that "Appeal to ridicule is exactly what you’re doing," it's not even remotely what I'm doing or else your words don't make sense. No one could seriously believe that I am appealing to anyone else to ridicule your arguments. Perhaps you might be justified in claiming that I was ridiculing them, and I suppose I am doing that by showing where they lead, but that's not an "appeal to ridicule." It might perhaps be seen as ridicule but it's not even really that.
The reason why it's not really ridicule is that I always play fair. I stay within the confines of what you yourself assert, without making believe you said something else so I can knock it down. What good would it do for me to say something like "And your solution is to come up with more regulatory agencies, or otherwise impose more regulations" if there were no basis for it in what you said? To do so would be argument for argument's own sake, which would be a foolish waste of time if I didn't have objections to what you've been doing.
One of the approaches I've used is reductio. It wouldn't work unless I stayed faithful to your argument. By "work" I mean that your arguments wouldn't look as ridiculous as they are unless I stayed within their bounds. You wouldn't be as annoyed with me as you so obviously are or spending outlandish amounts of time trying to refute what I say if I have been going afield. What's troubling you is that your thinking can't withstand the test I've applied to it. The trouble isn't in the test, though, but in your thinking. If you don't see where it goes you will indeed continue to look ridiculous.
Neither I nor anyone else can do it to you or for you. Why not take this opportunity to test your thinking by yourself to see where it leads. You might be surprised and embarrassed.
TwitchALot
Member
Sage said:
Every right can be waived (or should be able to). I have the right, for example, to waive my right to a trial by jury. I have the right to waive my right to remain silent. So on.
If you agree to waive your rights, you can’t go on and complain, with any integrity, that someone else is taking your rights away.
I am, because apparently, several people don’t know what’s going on, still. What I’m talking about is private property, so if you’re not contesting my claim, don’t disagree with me.
RH said:
Your statements in this thread and the other thread demonstrate that you believe the government should get involved in such matters (mine safety, business practices, all that other stuff). For example, you say:
”For example those six Utah coal miners died in the mine collapse, as did two of those who attempted to rescue them. The mine owner's method of "retreat mining" (blowing the mine roof down to expose more coal) has been criticized as inherently unsafe, the lengthy list of the mine owner's safety violations is public knowledge, there is now a growing scandal around the regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the miners' safety, but the company continues to maintain that its operation is safe for the coal miners.”
So who should fix this problem? I say the people and the miners. But you disagree. So who, who shall ensure the safety of these miners? And how would such a group do that? Here’s the thing, Robert- you don’t actually have to say something to actually say it. It’s apparent that you want the government to intervene. The government intervenes by creating regulatory agencies, or otherwise creating regulations.
Regulations, for example, would be a law that requires companies to pay their employees a certain amount of money per hour. Or a law that requires companies to pass a mining inspection before it can operate the mine.
I have always accepted the consequences of my principles. You have failed to do so. You’ve even failed to recognize the consequences of what you’re saying, whereas I realize where my principles lead and where my reasoning goes. It just so happens that you twist principles and then attribute them to me. Let me give you an example to illustrate that. You said earlier:
”It's rather interesting to see such your arguments in favor of racial discrimination and race wars, and the right of employers to control the lives of employees, because such positions seemed to have gone out of favor a generation or so ago.”
But that is not what I favor at all. I favor equal rights. An employer has no more of right to infringe on your property (your car, for example), any more than YOU have a right to infringe on his (his parking lot). If you forfeit your rights to your employer for a job, whose fault is that but your own? You decided that the money, or whatever it was, was worth temporarily forfeiting your rights. And now you complain about your rights being infringed upon? Give me a break.
You purposely misconstrue my arguments (resulting in an appeal to ridicule) and then act as if my principles are incorrect, or lead to something “bad.” You don’t even know what my principles are. And you’ve demonstrated that in your arguments, which largely don’t apply to me, or my position.
Your real motive, RH, is not benign. It is no more benign than the motives of gun control advocates who say, “we want to restrict guns for your safety.” They may say that, but their actions and statements do not agree with this principle. You are doing the same thing (whether you realize it or not is not relevant to me).
Let me elaborate. If gun control advocates were really interested in public safety, they’d be gunning (no pun intended) for alcohol like white on rice. Alcohol results in more deaths, increases domestic violence, causes a wide variety of other “societal ills,” and by God, it is certainly not more necessary than guns are. Yet, such advocates don’t go for alcohol. And the reason is that they don’t really give a rats *** about public safety. Their number one goal is to ban guns, period. Public safety is an excuse to impose what they really want on the people. Because if they had said, “we want to take away guns because we don’t believe you have the right to self-defense,” they’d never get anything passed. But then, gun control advocates, as ignorant as they may be, are not stupid.
Fortunately, neither am I. And I realize that their motive, while seemingly benign, is not benign at all. Some people may really think they believe that banning guns will make us safer. But the second that it is proven wrong, they’ll believe it anyway because they aren’t sincere about their motives.
Likewise, you say you believe in the Constitution, and freedom, and the Founding Fathers, yet everything you argue goes against those very principles (which it seems, you aren’t very informed about in the first place). Either you are not aware of it (but you claim otherwise), or you are not being benevolent in your argument. It is not the concept of freedom and liberty that you believe in, it seems. From your statements, I can gather that it is the concept of your freedom and liberty that you believe in. You presumably believe in, for example, your right to not let everyone on your private property whenever they feel like it. Yet, the person who does not want to let the black person onto his private property shouldn’t be allowed to do that.
What you fail, or refuse, to recognize is that both of these people are making arbitrary decisions. It just so happens that you believe his decision is wrong, and therefore, government should be able to say that he doesn’t have the right to decide who does what on his property. You, on the other hand, are immune from such a thing (in your eyes). That is not a belief in freedom and liberty, Robert. Let me bring this up again:
How can people who don’t believe what you believe live with “peacefully,” when YOU are trying to force them to conform to your ethics? When you go to them and say, “I think racism is wrong, and the government should stop you from being racist”? In this respect, racists are better than people like you are- they are not forcing you to be racist, or trying to force you to adopt racist policies, but YOU are trying to force them to not be racist, and you are trying to force them to adopt to YOUR ethics and principles.
The reason we don’t like “compromise,” Robert, is because we know that anti-gun people are not about compromise. They are not interested in finding a reasonable solution to the problem. They are interested in banning guns. And they’ll make any excuse they can to do it. You, it seems, are no different.
And some people don’t realize that. I’d say most people honestly don’t realize the consequences of their principles, or the hypocrisy of their positions. Quite frankly, whether they do that on purpose or by accident is not important to me.
I never said you are appealing to others to ridicule my arguments. I said you are appealing to ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).
No, you don’t, which is why I’m calling you on it. What good it would do for you to make up an argument if there were no basis for what I said? Well, let me borrow wiki: “This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense.”
You’ve demonstrated to me in the other thread that you have no idea what my position is. You’re completely confused about the matter (partly because you didn’t even read a majority of what I said- you merely presumed my position to be the one you thought it was). You make non-libertarian, anti-freedom and anti-liberty claims, and then you attribute them to me and others who believe in freedom. Your “attempted” arguments are not arguments against a position of freedom. Your arguments are arguments against some very twisted form of what you believe freedom is. The property rights trumping Constitutional rights, for example. That is not actually our argument (nor is that even the case in reality).
The reality is that some people are willing to forfeit their rights to their employer, temporary as it may be, in exchange for something. Those same people are then complaining about their employers infringing upon the rights they voluntarily gave up for that benefit. No standing, in my opinion.
No libertarian, or pro-freedom and liberty person, believes that employers have a right to infringe upon your rights. They also don’t believe that employees have a right to infringe upon the rights of employers. That is what you are missing. You keeping saying things like, “we know property owners get to trump your rights…” in mockery and so on. But that has never been the case. It is the GUEST (you, employees, anyone that tries to go on private property that doesn’t belong to them) that gets the right to infringe on property owners, in your opinion. It doesn’t matter if you are on someone else’s property- you have rights and speech and they can’t deny them to you.
Except for the fact that you have no right to be there in the first place, if the property owner so wishes. And that the Constitution doesn’t apply to individuals. And quite frankly, you’ve been unwilling to admit that. You’ve been unwilling to admit that you don’t let everyone and anyone who wants to go in your home, or in your car, in your home and in your car. The reason, I suspect, is because it would completely compromise your argument. If you believe that your “Constitutional rights” extend to private property and trump property rights, then you MUST believe that everyone and anyone has a right to go in your home and assemble and do almost whatever they wish (so long as it is Constitutionally protected).
But you don’t believe that, and you won’t admit it because it compromises your argument. So don’t try to deceive me (unintentionally or otherwise) and say you play fair, or that you’re benign, because your actions and arguments are completely inconsistent with that. You are saying one thing, but like gun-control advocates, your actions do not conform to your statements. And perhaps, had you actually taken the time to read my posts and think about them, you would have realized that yourself.
I understand my posts are long. But they are well-thought it, and they are defended. And if it so happens you don’t have the time to read and think about it carefully, don’t bother posting. There’s no rush. Wait until the weekend or whatever it may be, to find the time to understand what is going on before you post.
Honestly, Robert? I don’t care all too much if you’re honest with me or not here. Just do yourself a favor and be honest to yourself. You’ve barely read my arguments and spent the time to think about them. You don’t even seem to know the position I have or why. Let alone understand the Constitution, economics, or any other of the related topics. If you’re not willing to read and understand my position, don’t bother trying to criticize it it. Again, I’m done with these arguments for now. Objections can’t be raised to them if no one spent the time to read and understand them in the first place. As I said in the other thread, there will be opportunities in the future. But before you try and post something silly again (like that disfigured Reductio ad absurdum), do yourself a favor and figure out the actual position and principles libertarians hold in the first place. It’s a waste of your time to come up with something fancy and humorous in an attempt to mock a position if you don’t even know what that position is in the first place.
TwitchALot
Member
Q said:
If I am paying for MY doctor and hospital bills, (I’ll skip taxes because that’s another issue), and MY insurance premiums, how exactly am I paying for other people’s bills? Sure, the doctor can use that money to give free treatment if he wishes, but that’s his choice. His money, he should get to decide how he spends it. In so far as I’m concerned, that payment covers my expenses. Your argument would be along the lines of, “whenever you go to the store and buy food, you’re paying for all of those people who the store donates its food to.” No, you are paying for your goods, and the store is doing whatever the hell it wants with its property.
And let’s talk about price controls on the pharmaceutical companies and medical prices in general. It is apparent that you aren’t aware of why the price of medical care really is so high, so let me illustrate that for you with an example and historical context. Consider making a drug, for example. Before you even spend a DIME, on researching a new drug, it is already going to cost you, let’s say, 800,000,000 dollars. Before you even start. Before you pay for your scientists, the materials, lab equipment, all that stuff. The FDA, by its mandatory approval process, has set a price floor on the cost of developing new drugs. Tack on the money it takes to actually make the damn thing, and it’s no surprise drugs are expensive in the United States. The FDA ensures that drugs cost a lot of money, even if only 1 dollar is spent on researching the drug and developing it. It also ensures that drugs are not released on the market in a timely manner. If I’m dying of cancer and I have just days to live, and a company has an experimental drug that could save my life (but they don’t know the side effects yet), I generally can’t take that drug. The FDA won’t let me take that drug because it hasn’t gone through their rigorous and long approval process. It won’t let me take a drug that could save my life because it doesn’t feel like it is safe for me.
The government also decided that we should not be able to import drugs from other places. So it’s illegal to import cheaper drugs from other countries. If I think Canadian drugs are safe, and they’re cheaper, I can’t buy those cheap drugs because the government says so.
Now let me educate you about the history of medical care and why the prices are so high these days (hint: the answer starts with a G).
Let me give you a few links so I can keep it simple (and save some time).
http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/The_Medical_Monopoly.shtml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n230/ai_18696325/pg_1
http://www.mises.org/story/1749
http://www.newstarget.com/001765.html
The reason health care is so expensive, Q, and the reason our care is not as good despite the high expenditures, is not because government hasn’t done anything to “rectify” the problem. It has done too much.
The FDA and the AMA have a government enforced monopoly over the health care industry. You can’t practice medicine if you don’t go through an approved AMA school, do well on an approved AMA exam and interview, and otherwise jump through a lot of loops. This is enforced by laws enacted by the government.
Now what is this bad? Well, the first reason is, we can’t train as many doctors as we need. Medical schools only accept a set number of applicants. The AMA does a fine job, with the governments help, of ensuring that the supply of doctors who can practice medicine is low. And what happens when supply is low, but demand is high?
This isn’t because there aren’t enough qualified applicants. There are people with wonderful resumes that get rejected from med school, and the reason is because if more doctors practice, the AMA, and its doctors, get less money. If the AMA says something isn’t good, no one can disagree and practice medicine. It is illegal to do so (guess who made that law).
What we are experiencing is excessive government intervention, not the lack of it. People, like yourself, will argue that our lack of government intervention is the reason prices are so high, and Europe is a fine example of how prices can be. Well, that’d be right, except for the fact that we don’t run things like Europe. European governments generally socialize medicine, it is true. But they run their own program. What we have in the United States is a government that enforces a monopoly for a “corporation,” you could say.
Given that capitalists and libertarians assume that people are self-interested and rational, what do you think will happen if a company or business, for example, is given a monopoly enforced by law? They are going to jack up prices. Duh.
They want to make money. And they have no reason to set low prices because A) no one else can do anything about it, since they have the law and government on their side, and B) they want to make money. The behave exactly as people like myself expect them to behave. Of course medical prices are high. The government won’t let us buy cheaper drugs elsewhere, the government won’t let people go don’t get approved by one association to practice medicine (so we have less doctors to do more things. Less supply of doctors + high demand for doctors = ?), the government won’t let drugs be created here cheaply, the government won’t let drugs here be released early, and so on.
You want me to go on? I’d rather just get this out of the way and say that even if we were to assume that government has the right to dictate what price drugs should be sold at, it would be a preposterous reason anyway. Government is why medical care here is so expensive in the first place. And your solution is what, more government?
If you are not informed about an issue, do not try to pretend that you are. Many issues, including the Second Amendment, are a LOT more complex than people make them out to be. And while many tout government as the solution to all of our problems, every country in the world has proven that to be false. The government didn’t fix our problems. They didn’t fix the problems of the Chinese. They didn’t fix the problems of the Russians.
Most of the time, they’ve only made it worse. Sure, some of them actually tried to make things better for the people. It just never worked.
I wanted to separate this because it deserves special attention. Just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you should. You can shoot anyone you want. Doesn’t mean you should. And furthermore, what kind of ridiculous argument are you trying to put, here? Other countries have excessive gun control. Why shouldn’t we do the same?
“We should do it because other people do it” is a stupid argument, no matter how you look at it. To give you the worn out example, if everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you do it just because they did?
- Status
Similar threads
