Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Dubious Rights

.

2. The right to Bear Arms.


5. The right to remain silent


.....forever silent shhh
.


.





30 Comments:

Blogger Rachelli Dreyfuss said...

Chills... maybe our Founding Fathers didn't know how prophetic their words would be...
Ah.

December 26, 2012 9:28 AM  
Blogger The Professor said...

The lack of the right to bear arms under the Nazis helped enable the murder of millions.

While the world remained silent.

December 26, 2012 12:02 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Does everything have to go back to the holocaust?

If the Jews had arms..they wouldve been crushed just like the French, Polish, Czech, Dutch..etc armies..who had guns.
It wouldve been over much quicker and not many wouldve survived.
Just look at the warsaw ghetto.

But that has nothing to do with America and current society and progress..

December 26, 2012 1:53 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

No. World war two is simply an example of a dictator disarming the population so that the regime will meet no resistance. It happens time and time again.

Please recall, the American war of independence was fought by a fully volunteer army. Imagine what would have happened back then if guns had been banned. Today's army is still fully volunteer based. The right to own guns is one of, if not the most important right as an American; it is the right that helps enable the citizens to protect themselves from having their other rights taken.

December 26, 2012 2:24 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Im sorry but this is just absurd.
At the war of independence the most advanced weaponry were muskets and some cannons.
It would be easy for a militia to form what would have the same weapons.
Are you saying that the regime wanted to take away our first amendment rights..you'd stand up to tanks, fighter jets and gunships with your pistol?

It's time to move on from our paranoia. There are militias in the hills of America that are protecting the white race..others that are waiting for the great Zionist conspiracy to come for them..and some frum people who somehow have equally as ridiculous paranoid ideas.

Personally I'd rip the 2nd amendment out of our constitution and run the miniscule risk of losing my first amendment rights. Its a black mark on our country and I firmly believe that one day it'll be viewed as we view slavery today.

December 26, 2012 4:56 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

A) The types of weaponry make absolutely no difference. It is a right to bear arms.

B) First off, why do you think gun control will never happen in the US? Simple reason: there would be no way to enforce it. There would be federal officers and local police killed all over the country as they would attempt to enter a citizens house and "confiscate" his weapons. Second, no one has spoken about banning pistols, the talk has been on assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Those can be quite useful if a civil war were to ever break out. Additionally, states have national guard troops with tanks and fighter jets which would very likely claim allegiance to the state as opposed to the federal government. Volunteers with weapons would be very useful.

C) The ideas are by no means paranoid or ridiculous. It is reality. We have a government that encroaches on our liberty on a daily basis, and a sad amount of society who wants to lose their freedoms. Freedom loving Americans will be forced to fight for themselves sooner or later to protect all that we hold dear as well as the values which make our country special.

In addition to that, from a simple self defense standpoint. I am not sure if you were around during / recall the LA riots. The LAPD was nowhere to be found for a large part of the riots, leaving the ordinary citizen unprotected. Do you know what saved hundreds of stores in Koreatown? Store-owners who went on their stores roofs with assault rifles and picked off people trying to loot their store or set it on fire. Do you know why Beverly Hills did not go up in flames? Because residents barricaded their street blocks with pickup trucks and stood there with shotguns and assault rifles. The rioters knew better than to try and go there.

If you consider it logically, criminals will still have guns. All that banning guns will do is prevent the regular citizen from protecting him or herself. We need looser laws on guns. Right now every sociopath knows that if you want to commit a crime with a gun, go to the one place where guns are not allowed: schools. It is for that reason there are so many school shootings. When was the last time you heard of a man walking into a gun store or shooting range and open fire? It doesnt happen. If people knew that anyone standing next to you could be conceal carrying, there would be a lot more hesitation before committing a crime.

Lastly, I am sorry to say, but if that is truly your belief you are delusional. It is more likely that the union will split in half in the coming years due to growing divide in desires for freedom, interest in socialism and the like. The financial burdens will also play a key role. States like California will not be able to co-exist with a state like Texas. The liberal half of the union will very quickly become a socialist quasi dictatorship state. Under the guise of freedom and liberalism people will lose all their rights. When death camps and labor camps begin to open, people will look back and rue the day they handed in their guns.

December 26, 2012 5:16 PM  
Anonymous David said...

We are so far apart..it's silly for me to even respond.

Let me just say that none of that will happen because the under 25 generation in this country is almost as liberal as their European counterparts. It's only a matter of time before we catch up.
I for one don't see socialism as a threat but rather as a social responsibility. I will gladly give up some of my own rights, ego and tax dollars for the greater good.
A society where everyone has guns is far more threatening to me than 2 men getting married.
The fact is that the people of Scandinavia and other countries where "their rights are trampled on" are alot more relaxed and happier societies than ours.

December 26, 2012 5:53 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

A) The younger generation is deeply divided. Ron Paul was the most popular technician on the social networks. He is the most pro freedom politician there is.

B) " The greater good". What does that mean? What the government tries convincing you is the greater good is simple a tool to empower them. Your tax dollars go mainly to support bureaucrats. Only a very tiny amount actually goes towards the cause it was "intended" for. In addition to that, social programs usually tend to handicap people and leave them dependent on the government for life. The government loves that,, because then they are guaranteed votes from people who see no way out but the government. The free markets would allow for actual progress. Taxation is a form of stealing.

C) And the people of Switzerland are the wealthiest and happiest of them all. Everyone there owns an assault rifle, everyone is part of the official militia as well as unofficial ones, and there are extremely low taxes and very little federal oversight.

December 26, 2012 6:02 PM  
Anonymous David said...

If you look at polls you'll see that the difference between the older and younger generation on social issues. It's quite a dramatic divide.
The same is true with gun ownership.

The republican party is all about ego. Me Me Me..
I need to protect myself..so I need guns. Even though society would be better off without guns.

I want to keep all MY money..even though there are those less fortunate who need help. Even though a society that has vibrant culture and public facilities is a happier and more wholesome one.

I want to make as much money as I can...so I'll mistreat employees and not let them share in the wealth or organize. Let them develop Alpha personalities of ther own and trample on people under THEM.

I want to feel safe..or perhaps revenge..so let's have the death penalty and throw every criminal in jail without any thought of rehabilitation or viewing criminals as humans who might possibly need help.

American exceptionalism...

And so on and so forth.

Denmark is the happiest country on earth...

December 26, 2012 6:19 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

Regarding the divide, there are plenty of young people who do have their heads screwed on right and have not drunk the cool-aid. The issue is the younger generation (from about the time the Dept of Education was founded) have had their minds poisoned in public schools to become liberal zombies. They do not think on their own.

Regarding the Republican party being all about "me": I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian. I vote republican because they usually hold positions closest to mine. That being said, both parties today are all about "me", with the Republican party being less so. The Republican party wants to empower the citizens, it believes in and trusts in America. The Democrats by contrast do not believe in Americans. They think we are incapable of making decisions and choosing our way of life. They try taking all the power away from the citizens and making the decisions themselves. In essence, the Democratic party is the party which is all about "me", "me" being the politicians who like emptying the pockets on American citizens in order to allow themselves to remain in power.

In addition to that, Republicans are generally a lot more giving than Democrats. We give a lot more charity. It is simply that we believe social issues should be taken care of by private charities as opposed to by the government (who doe a terrible job at it).

Regarding the death penalty and prison, as a libertarian the death penalty is a matter which leaves me conflicted. There are definitely innocent people who are put to death as a result of it. However, there is a need to have a death penalty to take care of people who forfeit their rights to be part of society due to acting in sub human ways. There is no reason why they should stay in prison for the rest of their life living off of my money stolen by the government in the form of taxes. They should be executed after a thorough investigation.

There is a libertarian blogger who writes extremely well and who's stuff is quite interesting. You may have chanced upon his blog before, Anarchist Chossid, he blogs at crawlingaxe.blogspot.com. I would also reccomend checking out some of Ron Paul's books. They are extremely well written, very insightful and argue for the Libertarian / Republican side quite well.



December 26, 2012 6:53 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Let's call a spade a spade, youre an anarchist.

I can understand anarchy. Why should anything in the world come before my individual freedom? Why should laws and the need for order come before my inherent right to do whatever I want?
What makes us different than the rest of the animal kingdom?

I can understand it

I know all of the libertarian stuff. I consider Ayn Rand one of the most evil people of the past 100 years. I'm sorry but you're not changing my view here.
:-)

December 26, 2012 8:30 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

:-) I am by no means an anarchist. I believe in government, albeit a very very limited one. All government should do is have police, military and courts. Military should be for defense only and in no way be involved in nation building or imperialism.


That being said, yes, my individual freedom is of the utmost importance. Not just mine, but that of every single human being in general and American in specific. Freedom does not, however, give permission for entitlement. The so called "right" to education and "right" for medical care are not part of freedom. Under the guise of providing freedom to the next person, you trample on my freedom. If you want to pay taxes to support government social programs, feel free. Just please dont force me to pay into a program I do not believe in and do not support. The free market will do a better job on every single issue the government involves itself in (even militarily and with policing!)

And I assume you view Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro as heroes?

December 26, 2012 9:16 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

You know whats amazing, the divide. I honestly cannot begin to understand how you have the political opinions that you do. It completely boggles my my. You most probably feel the same way. It is for that reason I truly think the Union will split in the coming years. (as in 50 - 100 Maximum. Realistically 25)

December 26, 2012 9:31 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Why have government at all?
Why have a military?
Let everyone fend for themselves..

The act that you feel the need to come together and defend something means that theres a collective here worth defending. That we're looking out for one another. So theres not much difference between us..except I think we should be looking out for each other more than just for self preservation. There's more than just survival of the fittest.

Interestingly enough Scientists have found that giving makes us the happiest EVEN if we're giving against our will.
Which is why Communism doesnt work. If you don't own anything than you can't give anything.

December 26, 2012 9:36 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

The very limited role of government is needed to prevent another country from taking advantage of our free ways and invading. Private police forces, however, would be great. They would do a much better job at protecting. There would be competition in the market as to which police force to choose which would make them operate better.

I agree that we should look out for each other, through the private sector and free markets. That will provide for people a lot more efficiently than what the government is able to do. Government waste and bureaucratic processes make everything inefficient and wasteful. In addition to that, forcing me to support someone else is quite simply theft.

What you fail to see is that the path you are advocating is virtually communism. Communism, however, is a very scary word and is therefore avoided. The Democratic party therefore leaves the illusion that the individual still has rights over their body, ownership of their property etc. In truth, A) you dont and B) the little control you still have they seek to take from you.

December 26, 2012 9:43 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Wow...you are beyond paranoid.

The private sector..without government = serfdom.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I hope someday you'll come around..before you join some neo nazi militia in Montana.
:-)

December 26, 2012 11:08 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

I dont think Im paranoid, I think youre oblivious. Look at home much of our freedoms have been taken in the past bit. The so called "patriot act" has pretty much taken all freedom away from Americans. Freedom of religion suffers blow after blow. Taxes are raised time and time again, stealing from the ordinary citizen. Guns are banned. Freedom of speech violated. You simply do not see the writing on the wall, or choose not to believe it.

Not all at! Without government the market will be able to be truly free. There will be proper competition allowing companies to thrive and grow. Companies would be forced to pay more for talent because there would be so many options.

Haha. I have no such immediate plans. Forming a militia with similar minded people or building up a private arsenal is much more like it. And hey, the day will come when you realize how much of your freedoms you have lost and how imprisoned you are to the government. You will then turn to people like myself to to save you from the abyss you willing fully lowered yourself into.

December 26, 2012 11:26 PM  
Anonymous David said...

I don't see it the way you do.
I gladly pay taxes for all the services I get. Why is that stealing? I'd gladly pay more taxes for more universal services like they have in Europe.

Do you also believe that America orchestrated the attack on Newtown kids in order to have an excuse to take away guns? That seems to be a popular theory amongst your kind.

Guns are evil..bad and dangerous. No one should have them but the bare minimum amount of people.

Yeshaya longingly looks forward to days when weapons will be converted to plow shears. Will you accuse the prophet of taking away your rights when he takes your gun?

People are not free. Youre mistaken. Theyre driven by greed. The alpha males will benefit and grow dirty rich while the workers will be given as little as they possibly can get away with.

You can go live in a country that believes as you do...oh wait..there are no countries that do. Hmmm


December 27, 2012 12:06 AM  
Blogger The Professor said...

But think about it. What services DO you get? Nothing the private market couldnt do a better job at AND at much more competitive pricing. In addition to that, so YOU want the "services" the government "provides". So YOU can pay into it! Forcing me to subsidize a service for YOU and a service I do not want or care for is theft. Lastly, I lived in Canada for three years. The last thing I would vere want to see is "universal services". I do not want the US to turn into a country where the emergency room wait time is 16 hours, where one can wait 3 months for a crucial operation, or where the doctors go on vacation for 4 months a year because they "maxed out their salary cap".

First off, I have no "kind". Second, while I do not want to believe that, sadly, your "kind" will stop at nothing to strip Americans of freedoms in order to consolidate their power. History will show whether this attack was planned or not.

Haha. As are pencils. They are horrible horrible things. Pencils all over the world cheat on tests on a daily basis! I mean com eon! That is absurd! Guns are not evil, some people who have guns are evil. It is for the precise reason that gun control is a bad idea, the evil people will still have guns even with gin control laws in place. It is the good people who need to protect themselves and others from the evil people who will lose their guns, making them vulnerable and defenseless.

Yeshaya is speaking about a time when evil will be eradicated. When that day comes I will gladly turn in every last drop of weaponry. Until then....

That is only true in a regulated market. In a truly free market where companies can compete freely without government quotas and interference, workers would have to be paid well. If not they would leave to another company who would better compensate for talent. In a free market, there would be a major demand for talent and the worker would therefore be better treated.

I do live in a country that has, or was at least founded with such ideals. Sadly, over the course of time, the ideals have been lost and twisted by those who seek to gain power by stripping the citizens of their freedoms.

December 27, 2012 11:52 AM  
Anonymous David said...

For all the complaints about European and Canadian healthcare..their life expectancy and general quality of life is superior to ours.

So lets say the "private sector" decides that they don't want to take care of the poor and infirm? That's their prerogative right?

And let's say they set up a system where they do take care of those less fortunate and people need to contribute. That basically makes them a government.

And once again...let's say the private sector decides not to take care of the poor??

During the industrial revolution we saw what unfettered capitalism could be like.

Competition?
Let's say there are 2 companies that make a product and they both decide to pay their workers horribly?
The workers will organize themselves..

Ahh..you see...you want to take society back to its caveman roots so that we can slowly figure it all out on our own all over again...
That we do need a central government by the people for the people..with the idea of a society where people look out for one another...even if its forced.
Greed is a powerful thing... And sometimes we need to put safeguards in place to save us from ourselves.

December 27, 2012 8:48 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

If the private sector made such a decision, then yes, it is their prerogative. On the same not, how many times in history has it happened that the government has decided to get rid of the elderly and infirm? The private sector has always been the savior of the people. Private charities and organizations are always the ones who actually get things done. (And again, no one "needs" to contribute. People will contribute what they want, when they want and if they want. If there were not taxes, people would have more money and would contribute to charity even more than they already do!)

The beauty of the free market is that it sets values for things. If it is only willing to pay a certain amount for a certain type of worker, that is because the value of that worker is that amount. Forcing the employer to pay more than the market value is an added expense which then cripples the business. The business is then forces to fire staff or hire less staff to begin with. There will always be a demand for skilled workers and they will always be correctly compensated. The free market guarantees that.

The issue is, you cannot decide to put a safeguard on me. If you would like to set a program for yourself, be my guest. The issue arises when you try forcing to to participate in your programs. You will say its for the greater good. Well, who decides what the "greater good" means? Aside from that, quite frankly, I couldnt care less about the "greater good". The Unites States was specifically set up as a republic, not as a democracy for precisely this reason. So that the rights of the individual should never been quashed, even if the "majority" agrees that the "greater good" is contrary to the individual's stance. We have a constitution for a reason. Sadly, over the past 100 years, our society has eroded and people have forgotten what sort of country we live in. Your earlier comment about "there being no countries which hold by my views" shows how low we have sunk. The United States was always so great precisely because of the value it placed in / on the individual. The country has been in decline for quite some time now, ever since individual rights were impeded with senseless regulations, taxation and false freedoms.

December 27, 2012 9:52 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Well we're not going to agree.

"The beauty of the free market is that it sets values for things."
You don't hear how despicable that sounds??
People are things??
Peoples values are to be determined by the free market and by rich peoples needs????
That is sick.


I think the world is becoming a better place precisely because of this growing sensitivity to the greater good that people are starting to feel.
Much of the world was like the US 150 years ago. People were trampled upon..workers were dying..every country thought they were "exceptional" and the poor were dying in the streets.
I'm happy that the US is joining this brotherhood...forward

December 27, 2012 10:06 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

The free market sets value for everything. The value of a product and the value of a worker. If the workers work is valued at 5 dollars a day, why should the employer be forced to pay any more than that?

The underlying issue is that you seem to have an issue with someone being rich. You feel that it is not fair and everyone should have the same. It doesnt work like that. People get what they work for. The CEO of a large banking corporation who is compensated millions a year makes that much more than the teller in his bank because of the value he has to the company. You do not have that job because you could not provide the same service as him. If everyone was forced to share and no one would see the rewards of their hard work, people would very quickly stop working and being innovative, leading to a complete economic collapse. What would the government do then? Give free food to everyone? How would they pay for that? By forcing people to work? The ideals you espouse lead to a dead end.

Haha. And look at Europe. The EU and its social ideals seem to have gotten it veeery far, aye? They are in worse economic shape than the US. The US was the world's economic powerhouse until it decides to socialize and liberalize in the name of "freedom". Some politicians simply found a way to "milk" our country to enrich and empower themselves. The issue: they killed the goose which laid the golden egg. (Or I should say severely wounded it. It is dying. Only a true return to our constitution can save our country and the freedoms which once made it the greatest country / nation in the world).

December 27, 2012 10:17 PM  
Anonymous David said...

No the free market doesnt set the value and how to treat a human being. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you should pay someone what you can get away with. That's why there's a minimum wage..which you most likely oppose.

I have nothing against rich people. I do have something against people who get rich by mistreating others.

It's not a race..to see who can have the best economy.
You see everything through selfish eyes.
It's like a sport.
I'm a powerhouse..no you're a powerhouse.
I see no need to be a world power..or even a "great" nation like all the republican chest thumping.

I would completely do away with borders if we could. It's about loving other people and caring for them and not about only thinking about yourself.

Very simple concept.

I'm done discussing this.

December 27, 2012 10:31 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

Of course the free market says that! When you purchase shoes, you do not just hand over a million dollars, you give its value. As wonderful as it may sound to just give free money to everyone, in the end that is detrimental as it will lead to a breakdown of the entire system. People should be compensated based on the work they do.

As a Libertarian I would not like fully open borders as that encroaches on the rights of individual landowners. What I would like is an easement of visa regulations while at the same time a deregulation of markets. Deregulation would bring an economic surplus which would require more workers thereby making temporary visas a wise move. It would be conducive for both the immigrant workers as well as the business owners.

While you espouse love, you fail to see that your love in enabled by disenfranchising others. You only love the supposedly "weaker" people while seeing no issue with hurting people who are "better off". The issue: the policies you advocate create MORE "weaker" people. The issue is that by then there will be no one to care for them as society will be completely comprised of "weak" people. The only ones with power will be politicians who will throw crumbs to the masses every while in order to remain in power.

Anyhow, this has been a pleasant dialogue. It has opened my eyes to where society truly stands today. It almost makes me want to lose hope in the US. But "we" shall persevere. Who knows, maybe Il join politics someday to help bring the United States back to its true roots, bring the country back to its true glory for the benefit of all Americans and the benefit of the entire world.

December 27, 2012 10:41 PM  
Anonymous David said...

You should lose hope in the US.

And gain hope in humanity..

December 27, 2012 10:55 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

:-) I HAVE hope in humanity. That is precisely why I say we can be deregulated, have guns and be free. Because I have trust in the American people. You on the other hand do not have any hope in humanity, you feel we are doomed and need government nannies to supervise us, tell us we cant have sodas bigger than a certain size, no guns, tax us, etc.

December 27, 2012 10:59 PM  
Anonymous David said...

No.

Society is instinctively moving in the right direction. Our voice is heard through the democratic process and the will of the people. The world is moving forward.
Aside for a few nut jobs..no one feels the oppression of which you speak. No one is running from the shores of America or Western Europe. The world is getting brighter each day as it moves toward the messianic age.
You are a throwback to mistrust..barricades..guns...and selfishness all in the guise of beautiful sounding terms like Libertarianism...

I'm sorry to break it to you but the revolution which you crave isn't coming.

December 27, 2012 11:23 PM  
Blogger The Professor said...

And once again, the United States is not a democracy. We are a republic. The voice of the majority makes no difference, it is the individual who matters.

Sadly, the "revolution" will be short in coming. The Union will be split within the century. One half will be filled with people who truly love liberty and value the individual. The other half will be filled with idealists who will very quickly realize they have been hoodwinked by their leaders. When "reeducation camps" and the like begin springing up, you will rue the day when people like you voluntarily handed in their guns, leaving themselves defenseless before government tyranny.

December 27, 2012 11:27 PM  
Anonymous David said...



a'ight


December 27, 2012 11:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home