The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[carl]

What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?

The world is more complex. Bureaucracy becomes more complex to deal with the emerging problems - or should we strip down the state to its bare bones where there's only a handful of decision-makers and technicians? Interestingly, in the book The Dictators, the author makes it clear that the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler relied on their personal power and their ability to subordinate and bypass the functions of their respective state bureaucracies. Hitler specifically only met his ministers one or two at a time in a private meeting when he could manage it in order to reduce the restrictions placed on his decision-making. When there's no bureaucracy, it's those with the resources (the rich, the violent, etc) that come to power. It's not freedom.

Gee what a wonderment of distortion and misapprehension this is. And to conclude that bureaucracy is a bulwark against dictatorship! Simply amazing.

[Stan]

Gee what a wonderment of distortion and misapprehension this is. And to conclude that bureaucracy is a bulwark against dictatorship! Simply amazing.

Indeed And to think you were going to build an airport in DRC If you do, it will be more than 900 pages long in Bravo Sierra !

[carl]

Indeed And to think you were going to build an airport in DRC If you do, it will be more than 900 pages long in Bravo Sierra !

I couldn't get it done but I know an extremely capable guy from USAMRID who did get it done. And he got it done with I am sure a handful of pages of paper and a lot of personal contact, energy, a surprisingly small amount of money, lots of inborn talent, a small amount of time and some good judgement. You know the type of guy I'm talking about. Hell you probably were that type of guy.

[AmericanPride]

Gee what a wonderment of distortion and misapprehension this is. And to conclude that bureaucracy is a bulwark against dictatorship! Simply amazing.

What's "dictatorship"? If "dictatorship" is rule by an individual or small clique, then the collective decision making process of a bureaucracy is one bulwark against dictatorship. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were inefficient states not because of bureaucracy because the elite frequently circumvented bureaucracy for political reasons - officials were often tasked with special authorities to remove, modify, or otherwise displace the rule-based functions of bureaucracy, which lead to administrative chaos. Stalin had a personal chancellery with which to communicate, supervise, and otherwise control party subordinates independent of the state apparatus. That's dictatorship.

Now, let's take your definition of freedom as "to do whatever you want" since you haven't provided a definition of your own. I want to drive on the left side of the road because that's what I want to do. It doesn't matter that it puts other people's lives at risk because it's my freedom to do as I please that we're talking about. However, to ensure that I can freely drive on the left side of the road, I need to make sure I have the biggest truck in order to drive over all the imports and green-efficient cars that are obeying the law. The rule of law in this scenario no longer exists. In fact, the person with the biggest truck rules the road and everyone needs to get out of his way. That's not freedom either. That's actually another form of dictatorship.

The same concept applies to all other regulation, from building airports to safety in civil aviation, to the environment. Properly attuned regulations ensure that your actions do not impede on my own freedom. Ironically, this is lost in the growing Tea Party movement. Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.

[120mm]

What's "dictatorship"? If "dictatorship" is rule by an individual or small clique, then the collective decision making process of a bureaucracy is one bulwark against dictatorship. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were inefficient states not because of bureaucracy because the elite frequently circumvented bureaucracy for political reasons - officials were often tasked with special authorities to remove, modify, or otherwise displace the rule-based functions of bureaucracy, which lead to administrative chaos. Stalin had a personal chancellery with which to communicate, supervise, and otherwise control party subordinates independent of the state apparatus. That's dictatorship.

Now, let's take your definition of freedom as "to do whatever you want" since you haven't provided a definition of your own. I want to drive on the left side of the road because that's what I want to do. It doesn't matter that it puts other people's lives at risk because it's my freedom to do as I please that we're talking about. However, to ensure that I can freely drive on the left side of the road, I need to make sure I have the biggest truck in order to drive over all the imports and green-efficient cars that are obeying the law. The rule of law in this scenario no longer exists. In fact, the person with the biggest truck rules the road and everyone needs to get out of his way. That's not freedom either. That's actually another form of dictatorship.

The same concept applies to all other regulation, from building airports to safety in civil aviation, to the environment. Properly attuned regulations ensure that your actions do not impede on my own freedom. Ironically, this is lost in the growing Tea Party movement. Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.

Again, bull####. You build a ridiculous straw man to support the insupportable. What you propose is a form of rule where people only behave because they are directed to do so by a government bureacracy.

"Collective Freedom?"

Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

[AmericanPride]

What you propose is a form of rule where people only behave because they are directed to do so by a government bureacracy.

What I propose is that anarchy is not freedom. Ergo, the reduction of bureaucracy is not necessarily a proportional increase in 'freedom' (whatever that is) where at the end the elimination of bureaucracy equals absolute freedom. Please do keep up. You can start by providing your own definition of 'freedom'.

Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

Freedom is a 'group thing'. Your freedom is defined in relation to others.

"The world is more complex" is a justification for bureacrats to collect a check to do nothing of worth, and often to do evil.

Here some of the "northing of worth" that "bureaucrats" do to "collect a check": military service, law enforcement, border security, drug interdiction, food inspection, civil aviation safety enforcement, building codes, postal delivery, scientific research, and teaching. Just because your view of politics is narcassitic and socio-pathic, it doesn't mean the world is evil.

And as the world has become more complex, so has the nature of the American civil service - most federal employees are older, more educated, and work in white collar position related to analysis, knowledge management, and idea generation. Even so, over the last 60 years, the ratio of population to federal employee has widened, and the role of states in local issues has expanded significantly; meaning that the "overcentralized mess" you invented doesn't actually exist. The 2008 crash hit the local and state governments hardest, since they are the "most responsive" to local conditions; in other words, a centralized federal government was best positioned to withstand the crisis and continue to provide services.

Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.

Because that worked so well for blacks in the American south for the last 300 years...

[AmericanPride]

Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.

This is an ideal-type with little factual evidence to support your claim. First, "efficient" and "responsive" are not necessarily paired types, nor are they essentially conducive to democratic governance and "freedom" (assuming also that democratic governance is the ideal type for optimizing 'freedom'). As cited with both Hitler and Stalin, their conduct was "efficient" in so far their directives bypassed all other stakeholders and state bureaucracies. When Stalin noted that grass was overgrowing in Moscow, the very next day laborers were out cutting all the grass and pulling down the trees. That's pretty damn efficient. But he was also pretty efficient in condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death. We're talking about 'freedom', not money markets, so we can dispense with the economic jargon about 'efficiency'.

Is local governance more responsive than federal government? It depends to whom the government is responding. Local governments tend to politically alienate minority and low income communities depending on the structure of governance of the jurisdiction in question; and local special interest groups (i.e. COLLECTIVE action, there's that dirty word again) tend to have better access and more response than any individual citizen or business. But as noted earlier, that responsiveness is tied to the local conditions of the area, making it more difficult for localized authorities to tackle larger problems (i.e. regional transit, the environment, etc) alone, or simply stop functioning when local conditions fail (i.e. Detroit). And none of that actually makes government more democratic (i.e. maximizing citizen participation, which some would argue is a requirement for political freedom).

So until you actually man up and provide a definition of 'freedom', you don't have an argument to provide.

[Kiwigrunt]

Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

Provided you were a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

[carl]

Provided you were a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

A limited group of individuals. The idea was to extend things to to other individuals which we have done pretty well.

[Kiwigrunt]

A limited group of individuals. The idea was to extend things to to other individuals which we have done pretty well.

Who is this 'we' that is responsible for the extending of those liberties beyond the master race and gender? Might it be the people that 120mm so aptly describes as the commie benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing?

[carl]

Who is this 'we' that is responsible for the extending of those liberties beyond the master race and gender? Might it be the people that 120mm so aptly describes as the commie benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing?

That is a very interesting comment. I figured it was self evident that by "we" I was referring to us, the Americans. But you came up with something different. It is almost as of you believe something was conferred upon us by a discrete class of betters. Is that what you are trying to convey?

Your last 5 word phrase is interesting also. Somehow you came up with something along the lines of-since freedom is group thing, it is therefore right to extend it to more individuals. I think that interesting because I believe that all individuals deserve not to be deprived of their natural rights because their status as individuals, they are therefore they have so to speak. It has nothing at all to do with a group, it has everything to do with the individual. But somehow you came up with a group. Do you mean that no differentiation should be made amongst individuals because of superficialities that are subordinate to their status as individual humans and therefore restrictions upon natural rights based upon those superficialities should be done away with? I can go with that. But I note that that derives from the individual what he is due because he is.

[carl]

Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.

Another simply amazing statement, sort of the underlying basis of the political manifesto of The Borg.

[AmericanPride]

Another simply amazing statement, sort of the underlying basis of the political manifesto of The Borg.

You're bringing the intellectual equivalent of a butter knife to a gun fight.

Individual 'freedom' is defined in relation to the individual freedoms of others; ergo, the question of freedom is a collective question which applies to the whole and not simply each part separately. You still haven't provided a definition of 'freedom', which means you're not in a position to make claims about the relationship between governance and/or bureaucracy with freedom. Here's some thoughts on 'freedom' to help your with definition:

1) It should apply universally (i.e. to everyone, the collective, ooohhh).
2) It should be applied equally.
3) Its application for one should not reduce it for another.
4) It should be enforceable and practical.

Are you more free when everyone obeys the laws of the road, or when everyone can do as they please on the road?

[carl]

You're bringing the intellectual equivalent of a butter knife to a gun fight.

Well that works pretty good when you sneak up on a guy in the dark and stab him in the throat.

No, I think I'll let you define my positions for me. You seem to enjoy that.

I'll just content myself with gazing at wonderment at your words:

"Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing."

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'll just content myself with gazing at wonderment at your words:

"Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing."

Carl, in this case AP is right. After studying legitimacy for some time it is clear that the idea that freedom only exists in a group is well understood. A person alone on a desert island has no need to define freedom or liberty. These are terms that can have meaning in relation to other people or to a government.

Slap,

Jefferson was about as close to an atheist as you could get in the eighteenth century. He did not feel that religion had any business injecting itself in government.

In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.[2] Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.

As for the "Protestant ethic" idea, I can see why many people might feel that way. The Protestants were seen as being more industrious, but it had little to do with religion but had more to do with national identity. Check out Laih Greenfeld's "The Spirit of Capitalism". From a review.

Nationalism appeared in England during the sixteenth century, thereby “transforming social consciousness by 1600.” This developing sense of national identity, in turn, imbued the nation with a “new spirit” or “motive force,” thus giving England, despite its paltry resources, a competitive edge over other societies (p. 23). This is Max Weber with a twist. Nationalism, as defined by Greenfeld, replaces Weber’s “Protestant ethic” as the real spirit of capitalism and provides all the things that Weber’s Protestantism could not: egalitarian attitudes, social mobility, free labor markets, personal dignity, international competition, and a commitment to constant growth.

Of course, this is only a theory, but national identity was taking the place of religious identity in England and did the same in America. In America it did it with a vengeance. We even went to far as to attempt to create our own language by changing the spelling of certain words.

Webster believed that the fledgling country needed its own textbooks and a codified language around which to unite. He wrote, “Now is the time and this the country in which we may expect success in attempting changes to language, science, and government. Let us then seize the present moment and establish a national language as well as a national government.” His speller, later reader, and grammar all incorporated American heroes and authors with the goal of creating national symbols to galvanize the country. Between 1783 and the early 1900s it is estimated that Webster’s spelling book sold nearly 100 million copies. Over 30 influential textbooks followed, including History of the United States, the nation’s first full-length history. - See more at: http://connecticuthistory.org/noah-w....5spTfn0Z.dpuf

[TheCurmudgeon]

Getting back to the main theme and what David asked about the villain in popular movies tending to be an evil, repressive government. After thinking about what Stan wrote about the things we have done in recent years, I can see how people would feel that the American government is not the same. That it is no longer the moral stalwart it once was.

Before JW Bush we did not engage in targeted assassinations. There was an executive directive against it. Now drones engage in extrajudicial assassinations on a regular basis. We even justify the innocent people we kill in these attacks as justifiable collateral damage. We even kill American citizens. We now engage in kidnappings and torture, things we would have condemned if committed by others. We use the NSA, an agency that was not supposed to spy on US citizens, to collect meta data on our phone calls. It is not hard to see how the general population could begin to feel uneasy about the way we quickly discarded ideals we felt defined us as a nation in the interest of security.

[slapout9]

Slap,

Jefferson was about as close to an atheist as you could get in the eighteenth century. He did not feel that religion had any business injecting itself in government.

I understand that but my point was and is that seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution as it is so often said to be. What is in the Constitution is protection against the establishment of a national religion ( the church of England) and the protection to freely practice your religion. This goes all the way back to Plymouth Rock, the original cause for the creation of America.

Next I cannot find an original source but the original key defintion of assault rifle was full automatic fire not semi-automatic.