Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Don't We Fix Faulty Political Systems?

Political system Redesign

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#35 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts

Posted 23 August 2019 - 02:15 AM

Is this what you are looking for https://www.occ.gov/...y-qtr1-2019.pdf

 

Money is printed without being backed by assetts, how does new money get into the economy. ? World bank perhaps, what assetts do they have. Smoke and mirrors

 

Thanks, could you post the link to the index page as I kept on getting errors.

 

At least the total is down to around $200 trillion notional but it would be interesting to see if the total is currently increasing or decreasing.



#36 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 23 August 2019 - 04:24 AM

Thanks, could you post the link to the index page as I kept on getting errors.

 

At least the total is down to around $200 trillion notional but it would be interesting to see if the total is currently increasing or decreasing.

 

I have zero problems reading the pdf, the index/contents page is not full of hyperlinks, you have to read the  page number and scroll there, old fashioned way. I am using windows 10 on this computer, and Microsoft edge. I live in Europe, outside the Brexit zone.

 

The executive summary reads

 

"Executive Summary

 • Insured U.S. commercial banks and savings associations (collectively, banks) reported trading revenue of $10.0 billion in the first quarter of 2019, $5.9 billion more (141.0 percent) than in the previous quarter and $2.4 billion more (30.6 percent) than a year earlier (see table 1). • Credit exposure from derivatives decreased in the first quarter of 2019 compared with the fourth quarter of 2018. NCCE decreased $5.0 billion, or 1.6 percent, to $335 billion (see table 5). • Derivative notional amounts increased in the first quarter of 2019 by $24.9 billion, or 14.1 percent, to $201.3 trillion (see table 10). • Derivative contracts remained concentrated in interest rate products, which totaled $149.2 trillion or 74.1 percent of total derivative notional amounts (see table 10).

"



#37 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts

Posted 23 August 2019 - 06:05 PM

I have zero problems reading the pdf, the index/contents page is not full of hyperlinks, you have to read the  page number and scroll there, old fashioned way. I am using windows 10 on this computer, and Microsoft edge. I live in Europe, outside the Brexit zone.

 

Previously there was an index page where you could click on every quarterly report for each year. Trying to access the folder alone gives errors.

 

Also note that the index products were 3/4 of the total notional amount and over half of them were centrally cleared which passes risk to the central clearing house(s). The actual amounts that could be lost/won if the market tanks are close to $2 trillion which is around twice the US's current annual deficit. So much for "of the people, by the people and for the people" as they get to pay for the excesses of the 'elites'. Corruption eventually won the cold war and so many had to pay so much to so few greedy bastards.


  • DanielBoyd likes this

#38 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 25 August 2019 - 02:42 AM

If a government maintains confidence in the currency, and the public bail the banks out and continue to pay interest on their loans. The system continues to limp along. 

 

The OP still has not indicated what he believes needs fixing in politics. ??? 



#39 DanielBoyd

DanielBoyd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 27 August 2019 - 11:48 PM

As for WHY government often isn't as efficient as a capitalist business...Milton Friedman makes a good list of points. A business (with some notable exceptions) has to maintain a profit to grow, where a government only has to find another way to add taxes and control the way resources flow. This is why older governments tend to move towards socialism and very high income tax brackets.


 

This old gem kinda applies here;

 

Love these videos : both very relevant. Friedman is presenting the same problem - but not providing a solution. Other than introducing competition to government agencies. That would be great: Then you don't need to design, just introduce variation and selection to get progressive evollution to more effective forms as happens in business. The problem with this line of thinking is that governments are by definition monopolies. You can have 10 businesses making TVs and let the worst five go bankrupt, but you can't have 10 governments using different methods at the same time in the same country.

 

Would be nice if he presented a solution that was plausible.

 

The second video is sobering. These are rich man's problems, I agree. On the other hand, with the growing scale and impact of human activity on a finite planet that we are all dependent on, rumbling on as we are now, with (as other have posted) big money in control of things and vested political power mainly occupied with defending itself rather than public service, there's some pretty major risks that something could crash and then we wouldn;t be rich men anymore. 

 

That keeps me awake at night.



#40 DanielBoyd

DanielBoyd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 28 August 2019 - 12:11 AM

If a government maintains confidence in the currency, and the public bail the banks out and continue to pay interest on their loans. The system continues to limp along. 

 

The OP still has not indicated what he believes needs fixing in politics. ??? 

 

Sorry! Been on holiday.

 

What's wrong with the political system? Where shall I start? ;-) To name a few things:

- Most voting systems are patently (mathematically) unfair.

- Politicians make decisions about things they have no understanding of

- Periodic elections provide a disincentive for long-term vision or planning

- Periodic changes in government break developmental continuity: often what one government has built is broken down by the next

- Politicians are not held acccountable for misinformation - twisting the truth is even considered an inherent part of the political process

- Nation-based politics is ineffective in a global community, for instance losing control of multinational corporations.

 

(at a meta-level) there is the fundamental problem named by Friedman in the video: there is no mechanism to fix faults in political systems. Without such a mechanism, there is little reason why they should NOT be riddled with problems. A bit like religion, we are stuck with the ideas of people who probably did their best at designing something workable hundreds of years ago in a totally different (non-globalised) world.



#41 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2679 posts

Posted 28 August 2019 - 03:16 AM

Love these videos : both very relevant. Friedman is presenting the same problem - but not providing a solution. Other than introducing competition to government agencies. That would be great: Then you don't need to design, just introduce variation and selection to get progressive evollution to more effective forms as happens in business. The problem with this line of thinking is that governments are by definition monopolies. You can have 10 businesses making TVs and let the worst five go bankrupt, but you can't have 10 governments using different methods at the same time in the same country.

 

Would be nice if he presented a solution that was plausible.

Competition is the plausible. The irony is that you even pointed that out. To paraphrase a rather famous Canadian-turned-Republican voter: The post office never worked well before FedEx and UPS gave them a run for their money. (around 4:50)



#42 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 28 August 2019 - 03:40 AM

Sorry! Been on holiday.

 

What's wrong with the political system? Where shall I start? ;-) To name a few things:

- Most voting systems are patently (mathematically) unfair.

- Politicians make decisions about things they have no understanding of

- Periodic elections provide a disincentive for long-term vision or planning

- Periodic changes in government break developmental continuity: often what one government has built is broken down by the next

- Politicians are not held acccountable for misinformation - twisting the truth is even considered an inherent part of the political process

- Nation-based politics is ineffective in a global community, for instance losing control of multinational corporations.

 

(at a meta-level) there is the fundamental problem named by Friedman in the video: there is no mechanism to fix faults in political systems. Without such a mechanism, there is little reason why they should NOT be riddled with problems. A bit like religion, we are stuck with the ideas of people who probably did their best at designing something workable hundreds of years ago in a totally different (non-globalised) world.

 

In a two party state first past the post works. When more parties are involved first past the post is not representative of the electorate. Tactical voting sways the vote, and does not give a true picture, ie if you would like to vote for a Green party and know they have no chance, voting for another candidate from another party who stands a better chance to beat a candidate who you definitely don't want elected, is the way people vote. Some sort of transferable vote if your preferred candidate loses to another candidate might work, and be more representative of the electorate.

 

Controversially politicians are mostly honest people or start out that way, however rather than the cream rising to the top of any political party we seem to have a situation whereby the most devious shits rise to the top. States men/women are few and far between. 

 

Without elections we have dictatorships, single party states, monarchies which can benign but also can be very bad (torture etc). Elections are required to allow an informed public to change political parties who are not beneficial to society. Multinationals fund political parties, who have commercial interests to protect that is not in the interest of society. (The gun lobby for example in the states)

 

Politicians should be prosecuted for deliberate misinformation, not in a countries interests. It should come under treason. (Tony Blair Iraq war for example) (Boris Johnson Brexit) Loss of pension rights, and kicked out of office with no right to stand for office ever again, might be a minor deterrent. Prison might be more effective. 

 

The electorate can not select the best political leaders if they are misinformed, the media should also be prosecuted for misinformation. Blatant lies uttered by politicians should be checked before being repeated.

 

The new! media methods of communication like face book, twitter, science forums :) etc are an excellent method of misinformation and should be policed especially when it can be influenced by outside forces/governments/multinationals/etc, that could influence the stability of a political system and the lives of millions of people.   


  • DanielBoyd likes this

#43 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 28 August 2019 - 04:26 AM

Competition is the plausible. The irony is that you even pointed that out. To paraphrase a rather famous Canadian-turned-Republican voter: The post office never worked well before FedEx and UPS gave them a run for their money. (around 4:50)
 

 

There is lots wrong with that link. 

 

The definition of socialism in your link being governments providing public services such as the military is given as an example of a public service in the US. which party traditionally gives increases to the military? Democrats or Republicans. In Europe basic health care is regarded as a public service. 

 

Taking extremist views lets communist dictatorship driven by ideology perhaps to capitalist anarchism driven by greed. One might regard paying taxes as the right thing to do, where as the other might regard paying taxes as something to be avoided. 

 

Fedex as a political model in your video does not work, they lose too many important parcels. The workers are badly paid and they contract out services to the lowest bidder, driving down wages, except for shareholders maybe. 

 

A minor check of the rant ref crime in Sweden and rape in your video. Flags South Africa as the rape country of the world not Sweden, and that is just the reported cases. In South Africa many crimes go un reported. Sweden is high re developed world standards, but Africa blows it out of the water. https://www.statista...he-us-by-state/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden Note mainly rapes by foreigners from Africa have swayed the figures in Sweden.



#44 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2679 posts

Posted 28 August 2019 - 08:10 PM

There is lots wrong with that link. 

 

The definition of socialism in your link being governments providing public services such as the military is given as an example of a public service in the US. which party traditionally gives increases to the military? Democrats or Republicans. In Europe basic health care is regarded as a public service.

I think you missed something there, re:socialism and the definitions thereof. That's a digression from the point though. As for healthcare: Note taxes.
 


 

Fedex as a political model in your video does not work, they lose too many important parcels. The workers are badly paid and they contract out services to the lowest bidder, driving down wages, except for shareholders maybe.

Prob gonna have to agree to disagree here. I'll just point out that Private mail delivery would not be in business if it was worse than the government option. Logic 101.
 

 


A minor check of the rant ref crime in Sweden and rape in your video. Flags South Africa as the rape country of the world not Sweden, and that is just the reported cases. In South Africa many crimes go un reported. Sweden is high re developed world standards, but Africa blows it out of the water. https://www.statista...he-us-by-state/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden Note mainly rapes by foreigners from Africa have swayed the figures in Sweden.

Check by date. This video was during the ~500% increase in crime after several migrant waves. It's kinda funny you use this to derail away from the primary point and reason I linked it while providing timestamp, though. ;)



#45 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 02:55 AM

I think you missed something there, re:socialism and the definitions thereof. That's a digression from the point though. As for healthcare: Note taxes.
 

Prob gonna have to agree to disagree here. I'll just point out that Private mail delivery would not be in business if it was worse than the government option. Logic 101.
 

 

Check by date. This video was during the ~500% increase in crime after several migrant waves. It's kinda funny you use this to derail away from the primary point and reason I linked it while providing timestamp, though. ;)

 

There is no primary point in the link it wanders all over the place. 

 

The Royal mail group and parcel force in the UK delivers parcels and letters very reliably, as far as I am aware it has not been privatised yet. Private companies do exist in the UK like Fed ex, however they are not regarded as reliable as the Royal mail group, and where they do not have coverage they contract out to smaller companies, at the end of the day you get what you pay for. The cheapest option is not always the best :wink:

 

Fedex might be reliable where you live but in my experience outside America they are definitely not good. I wont use them in Europe, I had to use them in Venezuela when I wanted a parcel shipping from the States to Salvador in Venezuela the parcel went back and forth between sao Paulo and some depo in the US for about 2 weeks according to its tracking sheet. It got within 20 miles of me on at least 6 occasions, before finally arriving late!. 

 

A blip in crime stats of any country is a weak argument in support of any idea. What was the main point of the video? Was it in support of socialism, capitalism, communism, a dictatorship, how the hell did Swedish crime stats weave its way into the rant :) 



#46 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2679 posts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 03:54 AM

There is no primary point in the link it wanders all over the place. 

And yet, I specifically was pointing to this part in relation to competition vs government ineptitude being a good thing that fixes problems and drives innovation...

Competition is the plausible. The irony is that you even pointed that out. To paraphrase a rather famous Canadian-turned-Republican voter: The post office never worked well before FedEx and UPS gave them a run for their money. (around 4:50)
 

MY primary point. I suppose I could have been more precise in wording though I often hope I don't need to be.

 


A blip in crime stats of any country is a weak argument in support of any idea. What was the main point of the video? Was it in support of socialism, capitalism, communism, a dictatorship, how the hell did Swedish crime stats weave its way into the rant :)

Digression from the overall paraphrase and issue at hand. Feel free to use your own time to understand the "migrant Crisis" of the 2015 era as well as ongoing implications to the countries in question. That's a debate for a different thread though, and not my intention when I very specifically put a timestamp to the quote I paraphrased on another topic. :)



#47 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 04:55 AM

And yet, I specifically was pointing to this part in relation to competition vs government ineptitude being a good thing that fixes problems and drives innovation...

MY primary point. I suppose I could have been more precise in wording though I often hope I don't need to be.

 

 

That presupposes government ineptitude and not ineptitude from private businesses.

You will be aware that military research funded by inept governments drives a huge amount of innovation. 

Companies often can apply for research grants from governments.

 

I do take your point ref governments running businesses. The coal mining industry in the UK was a prime example whereby perhaps the unions had insisted none  commercially viable mines should continue to be mined. The mines were privatised and many closed down. the coal industry is all but finished now in the UK, and different fuel sources are used. The unions are required however to fight for peoples rights when dealing with businesses and corrupt governments. There is more to life and politics than money rewards.

 

I do think there is a massive problem in politics whereby political parties gain massive funding from companies. Governments should serve all the electorate, not specific lobby groups, against the interest of the electorate. 

 

Since you are in the America some where, the gun lobby is an example of what I am waffling about,.



#48 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2679 posts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 08:04 AM

I'm going to ~slightly exaggerate forced taxes as "at gunpoint" in the upcoming bit. I only think it's a ~slight exaggeration since if you do screw around with your taxes you're quite possibly going to have government people with guns come, take your stuff, and possibly lock you up as an example to others.

That presupposes government ineptitude and not ineptitude from private businesses.
You will be aware that military research funded by inept governments drives a huge amount of innovation. 
Companies often can apply for research grants from governments.

It does yes. I don't think that supposition is without merit just based off of the historic data I'm aware of.

Military industrial does indeed drive innovation, but you'll note it's by private companies that bid off it based on their own products. Pratt & Whitney, Standard Aero, Boeing, Porsche, etc.. all bid to fill niche contracts. Private individuals and companies tend to take their inventions there to "tap the well" of taxpayer dollars beyond preconceived needs too. That does NOT mean that centralized control/power drives innovation though. It does mean that governments LOVE to find new ways to "create revenue streams(at gunpoint)" and then spend that stream(sometimes at gunpoint).

Weather individuals should be forced to pay for those research grants or MIC contracts or whatnot (at gunpoint) is a different topic. Maybe someone's happy living in the mountains raising their own crops and cattle. Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for the trappings of roads, electric vehicle subsidies, water purification, new battery technology, and other things they do not use and do not want? Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for healthcare they don't use? Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for anything they don't directly benefit from?
 
 

The unions are required however to fight for peoples rights when dealing with businesses and corrupt governments. There is more to life and politics than money rewards.


My experience with Unions doesn't quite line up with that, but personal experience is anecdotal rather than statistical.
 

I do think there is a massive problem in politics whereby political parties gain massive funding from companies. Governments should serve all the electorate, not specific lobby groups, against the interest of the electorate. 
 
Since you are in the America some where, the gun lobby is an example of what I am waffling about,.

Canadian. Technically that's part of America as a whole just like Mexico, Brasil, or Chile.

I WISH our gun lobby was stronger. ~Gun control is not enough~, meet knife control. I mean, you can't blame a tool for asshat people but that will not stop governments from trying to do so. I'm of the informed opinion that if every adult was required to own and maintain a gun unless proven to be criminally incompetent life would be much safer. Force multiplication is an equalizer not a cause. ;) So, if you're insinuating the "protect the second amendment" lobby is somehow against the electorate...I shall ~respectfully disagree~ with you unless you can provide real data on violent crime rates showing otherwise(not cherry picked and narrowed down to "gun deaths only").

I do take your point on dealing with "buying a vote" and whatnot. I agree with it generally even if I disagree with that specific example.


Edited by GAHD, 29 August 2019 - 08:26 AM.
more supporting links


#49 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 10:27 AM

I'm going to ~slightly exaggerate forced taxes as "at gunpoint" in the upcoming bit. I only think it's a ~slight exaggeration since if you do screw around with your taxes you're quite possibly going to have government people with guns come, take your stuff, and possibly lock you up as an example to others.

It does yes. I don't think that supposition is without merit just based off of the historic data I'm aware of.

Military industrial does indeed drive innovation, but you'll note it's by private companies that bid off it based on their own products. Pratt & Whitney, Standard Aero, Boeing, Porsche, etc.. all bid to fill niche contracts. Private individuals and companies tend to take their inventions there to "tap the well" of taxpayer dollars beyond preconceived needs too. That does NOT mean that centralized control/power drives innovation though. It does mean that governments LOVE to find new ways to "create revenue streams(at gunpoint)" and then spend that stream(sometimes at gunpoint).

Weather individuals should be forced to pay for those research grants or MIC contracts or whatnot (at gunpoint) is a different topic. Maybe someone's happy living in the mountains raising their own crops and cattle. Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for the trappings of roads, electric vehicle subsidies, water purification, new battery technology, and other things they do not use and do not want? Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for healthcare they don't use? Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for anything they don't directly benefit from?
 
 


My experience with Unions doesn't quite line up with that, but personal experience is anecdotal rather than statistical.
 

Canadian. Technically that's part of America as a whole just like Mexico, Brasil, or Chile.

I WISH our gun lobby was stronger. ~Gun control is not enough~, meet knife control. I mean, you can't blame a tool for asshat people but that will not stop governments from trying to do so. I'm of the informed opinion that if every adult was required to own and maintain a gun unless proven to be criminally incompetent life would be much safer. Force multiplication is an equalizer not a cause. ;) So, if you're insinuating the "protect the second amendment" lobby is somehow against the electorate...I shall ~respectfully disagree~ with you unless you can provide real data on violent crime rates showing otherwise(not cherry picked and narrowed down to "gun deaths only").

I do take your point on dealing with "buying a vote" and whatnot. I agree with it generally even if I disagree with that specific example.

 

We are off thread.

 

The unions were brought into being because they were needed. They may have in some countries at some times have over stepped their remit by allowing lazy workers a cushy ride on the backs of hard workers. If you want something doing quickly give it to someone who is busy, not the people who are sitting around gossiping pretending to be busy! 

 

I had guessed Canadian, but did not guess you liked guns, normally that is a US American thing. I guess in Canada a grisly bear might make you feel nervous. What do you think your gun is for. Is shooting somebody for a minor criminal act allowable in Canada. In Africa I understand the police advise shoot the criminal first then put a warning shot into the wall or roof, it saves on paperwork. Is that the same in Canada.

 

Guns (assault weapons) in the ownership of people who don't value life or the law might not be a good idea, people would do mass shootings and all sorts of bad things. You will be aware that mass shootings have been going on in America for a long time the worst being in 1890 https://bigthink.com...-not-in-orlando

 

Back on thread

 

Who should politicians protect, big businesses, Monsanto perhaps or the electorate. Should multinationals making huge profits around the world for investors be allowed to apply lower levels of protection for their work force in perhaps India than they would in America or Europe. Are some workers more expendable than others. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 29 August 2019 - 10:28 AM.


#50 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2679 posts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 11:41 AM

We are off thread.

 

Little OT, yes, though it's close in the sense of what is and is not a political issue:
 
 

Why do we place these problems in the hands of politicians who understand them no better than the man in the street? If the heating in my house doesn't work I call in someone who understands heating systems, not someone who has a very strong opinion about heating systems but no knowledge of how they work. It would seem sensiblle to do the same when our planet's heating system is on the blink. So why don't we redefine what is and what is not a political issue, and give only political problems to politicians to solve (there are enough of those to keep them busy!)

 

I had guessed Canadian, but did not guess you liked guns, normally that is a US American thing. I guess in Canada a grisly bear might make you feel nervous. What do you think your gun is for. Is shooting somebody for a minor criminal act allowable in Canada. In Africa I understand the police advise shoot the criminal first then put a warning shot into the wall or roof, it saves on paperwork. Is that the same in Canada.
 
Guns (assault weapons) in the ownership of people who don't value life or the law might not be a good idea, people would do mass shootings and all sorts of bad things. You will be aware that mass shootings have been going on in America for a long time the worst being in 1890 https://bigthink.com...-not-in-orlando

Bears don't bother me: they will run away if you stand up and scream unless you're in between them and their cubs. What is of concern is some desperate drug user strung out and irrational (or other criminal element). Guns "even the odds" for anyone not physically capable of subduing the criminal element. EG: 45kg grandmother coming home from the bank, with the POTENTIAL of a pistol in her purse she is not as much of a target as if she is denied that potential. Same is true for a 45kg college girl walking home to the dorms after a sporting event. Note in my previous post I pointed out the London has MASSIVE murder rates with it's draconian gun control, and now even kitchen knives are under government siege. You need to examine the logic of your stance when it's shown to be silly de facto.

"mass shootings" have been stopped in progress by "a good guy with a gun" very often. You will note that states with Open Carry laws have very low incidents of that kinda crap. If(when) one idiot with a gun starts shooting which of the following 2 scenarios is better:

  1. OMG this is Illinois where gun control is very strict. No one has a gun and it's very hard to out-run a bullet. 30+ people are there and can see the crazy person, and while they try to outrun the bullets and hide they scramble to dial 911 and wait 15-30 minutes (or possibly 2+ hours in other cases) for police(good guys with guns) to respond, identify the shooter, organise, and take action.
  2. OMG this is Texas. This guy's shooting people from a church! Good guy runs from his house nearby with his rifle(the infamous AR 15 by Armalite), and Ends the terror while the police are still talking on their radios.

Criminals Do Not Follow Laws. What short-circuit of logic can possibly lead to the conclusion that removing guns from those without criminal history makes it safer? That's like saying (possibly drunk) drivers have killed pedestrians, no one should be allowed to own a vehicle or drive except government employees. Another analogy, this time regarding magasine capacity, size of barrel, and general scary looks: Cars with the ability to move faster than 15 km/h and weighing more than 400kg can cause "mass destruction" if they ever get out of control, we must govern all cars to a maximum of 15 km/h and limit the weight to no more than 400kg fully loaded!

It is better to have a Big Stick and never have to swing it than to desperately need a Big Stick and have one nowhere in sight.

"assault weapons" is an undefinable political buzz-word and it is a waste of calories to even bother to read it. A firearm is a firearm regardless of mechanisms or weather is had a wood-grain stock or a "scary looking" stamped metal or plastic one.
 

 

Back on thread

 

Who should politicians protect, big businesses, Monsanto perhaps or the electorate. Should multinationals making huge profits around the world for investors be allowed to apply lower levels of protection for their work force in perhaps India than they would in America or Europe. Are some workers more expendable than others. 

In theory none of the above; Government duty is to the nation. Republics are generally set up to safeguard individual freedoms from mob rule while at the same time promoting local interests that do not go against individual rights. Big Business or Multinationals should fall under that "mob rule" part just as much as "the electorate" does. Examples of Failures in this regard are many; weather it be in waste or water management, law enforcement and protecting the peace in an active manner, or any number of valid civic duties. When the government fails to provide what it forces tax collection for, private business often has to step in(security guards, bottled water, septic services, etc...) while the taxpayer still is forced to pay(at gunpoint) for services that are being mismanaged or failure to provide.

People are free to not buy a product from a company they don't like the ethics of. They are NOT free to "not buy" a government mandated service. This is a classic debate of personal choices, freedoms, and oversight. What about your local laws and bylaws? Do they actually protect your rights and freedoms as they are currently implemented?


Edited by GAHD, 29 August 2019 - 12:09 PM.
cars


#51 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2679 posts

Posted 30 August 2019 - 07:00 PM

You appear to be very confused (lost in smoke and mirrors). I am not from America, and have lived a long time outside Europe, I strongly believe people with guns are asking for a good kicking. I do not believe nation states should try and police world politics. Your values are not mine, if you come near me with a gun, I am very likely to shoot you with beat you to death with it. Especially if you come near me when I have had a drink like now.

looks like you answered the part you didn't quote, and quoted the part you have no answer for. Maybe take some time to really think about your stance, and examine what part of your past education/indoctrination lead to it. :)

Bringing a boot to a gunfight seems like a recipe to loose a leg to me...