(no subject)

[johnny9fingers]

Some twenty years ago Margaret Thatcher stated that 'there is no such thing as society',  merely individuals.

That's what is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We have been importing guns alongside the violent gun-culture of the American underclass. We have no social cohesion. Twenty-six years of low taxes, minimal investment, and accelerating disparity between the rich and poor have brought us to this pretty pass.

Thatcher refused to invest in public transport for ideological reasons. The car, and individual 'choice'  were favoured above a sensible use of our resources.
I wonder how that looks in hindsight from the perspective of the idea of climate change? (Which apparently, folk on the right still don't find a convincing argument.)

Low taxes for the rich were meant to provide a 'trickle-down effect' and wealth for all. Hahaha.
The levels of inequality are so great now, that the underclass, with nothing to lose, have embraced a criminal violent gun culture that gives them meaning (and money) and power: the power of life or death, which dependent upon the gun-toting individuals state of mind, can be as random as any drug-fuelled lottery.

We need more investment, especially in education. We need to decriminalise all drugs, to remove them from the control of the criminal classes. We have to concentrate on this abstract anti-Thatcher concept: society. We need to deal with guns. 10 years for possession might just about cover it.

We also need to pay for all this.

Higher taxes. Now.

Comments

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

alright

now i, like most people, hate thatcher. she is an evil bitch the line to dance on whoms grave i shall join

however

the goverment of today has pumped million, mabby billions of pound in to eduction, helth, and i hope transport. althoug it pissis me off that it counts a pound! to catch a bus (fairs need to be brought under control on all branches off public trasport to make them a vcible altertive to flying and driveing, fucking ken liveington...)

drugs will always been a touchy issue. its alright saying lets decrimnlse drugs, but heroine has the potental for a leathal overdose at one time. to drink your self to death, on a single night, is very diffcult, becous your likely to pass out befor the optunty to finsh the job arises. its piss easy to od on heroin, not to mention needle risks.

socitey dose need to be strengthed, and ill be honste, i dont know how. but we should. and gun crime need to be brought under control, and 10 years for posion might just do it.

and we need to raise taxs on the rich. becous theres a point where welth become ridcluse, and its been reached.

and folks on witch right? in the uk, everyone and there dogs campining on climent change.

[towith.livejournal.com]

The concept of a universal objective truth, while noble when applied the data, falls apart with the gambit of human perception. It makes us believe that as there is an unquestionable order, increasing the amount of order will hold society together. This actually tends to create great fissures through-out society, which then rupture violently.

Take guns. What you're proposing only mirrors the drug prohibitions you're railing against. Guns will and have been driven underground, creating large amounts of profit for criminal gangs. Ten years in prison becomes not only a viable risk, but a joke.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

There is, as you know, a category distinction between guns, that mainly kill people other than those using them, and drugs which kill, maim, or harm those that take them. There is a difference between self reflectory behaviour and the use of a tool with one purpose.
In the UK Guns are illegal anyway. All we're talking about is the length of sentence for those caught in possession. Guns are all black market and underground anyway. What we need to do is pay for more prisons for these folk, and eliminate the link between drigs and violent crime as was done with alcohol in the USA with the repeal of the 18th amendment.
There are large profits for criminal gangs in the dealing of guns (like drugs) however if the penalties for gun ownership mirrored the destruction they cause to people other than those owning them.....
What we have to do is pay for the prisons for these folk to be incarcerated in: higher taxes, now.

[towith.livejournal.com]

Why make that seperation when the results of a prohibition are the same? Why make that seperation when the people you're trying to take guns away from, the criminals, will still have access to them? Why make the gamble of hoping when drugs go away, they just wont pile onto human trafficking, or gambling dens? And why do you keep saying "Higher taxes, now." When it's possible to have higher taxes and worse infrastructure. You need a better plan, not yet another throw-away slogan.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Your argument could also be used about terrorism....we'll just drive it underground. The results of prohibition are just the same.

Alas, if you think that the murder of an 11 year old by a 14year old is the same as a junkie overdosing, you're not quite the intellect I thought you to be.

It's about resources.
Legal drugs, legal (and monitored) prostitution, enables a society to concentrate the policing on guns, extortion, etc.
But evidently you feel you have a better solution.
Please forward.

[towith.livejournal.com]

As terrorism is a behaviour, this is patently untrue.

you're not quite the intellect I thought you to be.

Ad hominem & an emotional appeal. Your argument thus far against guns, is that they exist within drug cartels. 14yr old boys with no respect for firearms, mainly due to their glamorized illegality, is not a drug cartel.

But evidently you feel you have a better solution.

You're making another appeal. I want to stop the argument here for a second. When we wish to back a statement, or plan, we do so with empirical or ontological premises. We then argue from those premises. We do not attack the other person. You're on the fast road to a circular argument.

Now, my solution? The Golden Rule. I trust you to trust me. I respect you in the agreement that you respect me. I allow you to do whatever you please, until the point where your right to swing your fist meets my nose. I propose we arrest those who commit real crimes and stay out of social engineering.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Ad hominem & an emotional appeal.
All true.
So you would be for legalisation of all firearms on the grounds of principle?
The fact is, though I might well trust you, and you trust me, I no longer trust some small child not to shoot some other small child.
And though I abhor the idea of our law being built around the stupidities of the lowest common denominator, and though I also (in private) uphold the freedom to act and think as I like, and though I don't especially care for the criminal, and what it is prepared to do to itself I care when it crosses the boundaries and brings such to ordinary folk of no involvement.
Whatever sense of social responsibilty I have is probably entirely self interested. If this stuff leaks from the criminal subculture and affects me and mine I will polemicise until my fingers bleed, or until we stop the murderous little orcs shooting each other.
I think you'd be mad to trust a teenager with a gun not to shoot something, or someone. But perhaps I misunderstand you, and that's not your position.

[towith.livejournal.com]

Would you trust a child to drive a car. Go out drinking. Have a sex-life. Join the army. Vote. We make exceptions for children in our society because of their lack of experience. We leave it up to the more-experienced parents to set the boundaries. Once they become adults, we then must trust them to their own devices. Trust them to make their own decisions, be they bad or good, just as they trust us to make our own. Once we begin chipping away at that trust, we not only erode society, we destroy our very humanity.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

If age is a modifier of your position are there others?
Should mental illnesses prevent someone from owning a gun?
Should stupidity?
Should a previous criminal record? For non-violent crime?
I think you'll find that there are already so many exceptions to the list of the people you trust. And most of these will be based not on principle, but upon good sense, which is not always consistant, nor always logical, I suppose.
You'll find my list happens to include almost all of the people resident in the UK, because I don't think any of them, who are not in the armed forces, should ever have anything to do with weapons.
Because I don't think they're fit, and I also think they're proving it on a daily basis.
And to respond to an earlier comment: isn't legislating against the misuse of drugs or against prostitution social engineering? Which presumably you're against?

[towith.livejournal.com]

As I said, it's a societal modifier. Since morality is nothing more than something that has been generated to rationalize the interest of particular classes of people, every class of people will inevitably convince themselves that their values are the "truly worthy." We live in a society where children are not considered worthy i.e it's our culture's gripe, don't blame me.

Onto stupidity; it does not intrinsically denote violence. Nor do a series of unpaid parking tickets. Mentally ill also does not a violent person make. Everything above can be put sorted by one question "Have they committed a violent act?" Everything else is a caveat and your list is simply an investigation into what I've already stated; the golden rule.

[towith.livejournal.com]

I also feel that we're slipping slowly away from the issue. What was originally your proposal, is now centered on mine. I'd love to talk about myself some more, but not as a diversion.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Also, if it is a question of principle, and not danger or degree, can I have my Nuke's please. Purely for defensive purposes, and I'm sure you trust me. Don't you?

[towith.livejournal.com]

In our current political climate, where everyone without a nuke is susceptible to international bullying, I'd see it as insensible to not own a nuke. Which is precisely the position the government you wish to give more money to makes. And as a side-note, what are you hoping to achieve by introducing melodrama?

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Wasn't meant as melodrama, but as an extreme. A test of principle, if you like.
Again your position means allowing the Iraqis to arm with such weapons, if I read you correctly. And as with teenagers, there are some countries I just dont trust with such toys.

[towith.livejournal.com]

And there are some adults I wouldn't trust with a bread-knife. This is because they've already proved themselves to be untrustworthy by committing crimes.

[towith.livejournal.com]

And just because I love confusing the issue further in the name of clarity. If we are to have prisons centered around the concept of rehabilitation, once we trust a person to live in society again, we must trust them also with the burdens which come with it*. This was a particularly interesting quandary when criminals settled in Australia. The fruits of their labours were effectively stolen from them by the state. It took a long battle for them to gain the right to provide for themselves and determine their own future.

*If they aren't rehabilitated, yet released, this clearly does not count.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Actually I agree with you. I'm rather for rehabilitation if it can be managed: and I also think that prisoners who have been rehabilitated and released should be entitled to participate fully in society.
I have shot: didn't suit, though shotguns always smell wonderful. (Odd fact, that: could be I'm just a boy at heart.) They often look wonderful too: however....I don't trust me with 'em (being somewhat cack-handed outside of the specific of guitar playing) and to be candid a firearms license, in my opinion, should be more difficult to get than a driving license. As is, many folk I know who shot small bore competetively lost out after the blanket ban that came in (I believe: please correct if in error) after Hungerford? But if the responsible aren't armed, I certainly think that we have a right to be protected from the criminal and irresponsible. Or is that not part of the social contract?

[towith.livejournal.com]

No one should feel entirely comfortable with a weapon. They're to be highly respected and used with care, but not to the point where we fear them. Fear can only divide us.

I was too small to recall much about Hungerford, though I believe a blanket ban on pistols came after Dunblane. Terrible events like these really quite make me wish there was a cooling off period for the legislators. No-one is thinking straight after such a horrible event. Even I turn into Stalin when I haven't had time to sit down and consider matters. Take the mess which is the American "PATRIOT ACT," brought in quickly after 9/11. Hardly a page of it was read by most senators.

Or is that not part of the social contract?

Those willing to commit violent crimes are already outside of the social contract. The problem is that once the idea is out there, that breaking the law might be beneficial, it grips people like wild-fire. Criminal organisms really aren't created over night, they smolder away in all of us, every time we pick up the newspaper and disagree with the government. Every time we see a corner we could cut. It's human nature. It makes us question why we should respect them, if they don't respect us. Which is precisely the reason I become uncomfortable when people speak of "They're too stupid to own/do ____." It only leads to a backlash.

Then again, I'm only 21. Come back to me in a few years and I may spin you another yarn.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I wasn't suggesting the social contract existed between society and criminals. I think the social contract exists between society and the government, and part of it deals with the protection of society from criminals. If we give up our rights to defend ourselves, we have a right to be protected. This protection is failing. I'm not in favour of any relaxation of the gun laws: the differences in gun murder rate (and murder rate in general) between the UK and the US is enough to convince me, that no matter how inconvenient (like a 70mph speed limit when one owns a well maintained and fettled Ferrari) it works to the benefit of society at large. The common good (in a democracy) triumphs over individual desire. In an Anarchy such is not the case, and individual freedom is paramount.
Rightly has democracy been called the tyranny of the majority.
And I think, no matter how many criminals we have in our society (until they become an actual majority, obviously) the majority of folk (even thinking folk) don't wish for any relaxation of the gun laws. In fact, I'd bet that they'd opt for more stringent measures and draconian sentencing. Which doesn't make it right, but is in accordance with the principles of democracy.
However: I would say your trust in folk to behave properly ain't born out by the evidence. We have more folk in prison as a percentage than any major European country, and are approaching US levels of criminality. I don't know if Anglo-Saxon cultures are just inherently more criminal than for example French speaking cultures, but it looks that way.
I think we deal with this gun nonsense now. And hard. And I rather hope the legislators agree with me.
And I'm normally a pretty libertarian guy.
Honestly....What do we need guns for in England? They may be the latest playground accessory, but once a kid has shown it off to his friends, and terrorised his teachers the next thing on the list is to shoot someone. If we deal with it now, and properly, we can limit the casualties.

[towith.livejournal.com]

I have a hangover, so pithy answers from now on and I promise not to call you rude names from my funk.

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional monarchy. Democracies don't need social contracts, they have mobs. Most people see a number and think "Wow, this looks bad, let's trust it and do something" rather than "Perception is the mandate of the people." You bring up the US when you could bring up Canada, which has the same gun laws yet a vastly different murder rate. You choose what you wish to panic about. You choose what the "common good" is. You choose the method in which you want it enforced. And maybe it's my headache, but I think we've been over this several times already.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I think you'll find the definition of 'Constitutional Monarchy' includes democratic principles. The monarch has no executive powers, and our government is directly elected, my dear, by the enfranchised populace. Which is actually more democratic than the involvement of an electoral college. Canada is also a Constitutional Monarchy. And it doesn't have the same gun laws as the US. There is no coherent or consistant pattern of state laws dealing with gun ownership in the US. The differences between NY and Texas gun-owning laws are vast. As is the difference in murder rate.
The social contract deals with the common good. It is also (via Hobbes, and subsequently Locke, as you know) an idea with English origins, and one of the bases of our (unwritten) constitution. If your libertarianism extends to ignoring it, that effectively places you outside of it. A bit like the folk who feel the need to own weapons.

If there is no such thing as society, then the rule of the strongest becomes inevitable. In which case, I'll put myself on the side of my chums with money and power, thank you. And we'll probably make life very difficult for the have-nots. And the folk in the middle will get squeezed pretty viciously too. I'll have someone else carry my guns, however.

[towith.livejournal.com]

It also includes certain dictatorial principles, though I wouldn't call it a dictatorship. We have representational elections every few years. This does not a democracy make. And saying there are shades of grey in law is obvious. In fact, if you don't like a law and you're on a jury, you don't need to follow it. That's about as grey as it can get.

The social contract deals with common good in the sense of reciprocity, the golden rule. I wont kill you, if you don't kill me. Later further defined by Kant and elaborated by Hegel and Marx. And why am I a libertarian all of a sudden? If you added me to your friend's list as their spokesman, you're going to be bitterly disappointed.

And I am quite for society, so that paragraph seems rather random.

P.s. Don't patronize me, or this conversation ends here.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Far from regarding you as a spokesman for libertarianism, I rather thought you were adopting a position. If I appear to patronise, it could be something non-specific to our discussion. (I am rather arch from time to time, it is in my nature.) You're on my friends list because you're clever, but not always wise. I on the other hand am not always clever, even, dammit.

Without the social contract we are, as Hobbes says 'Bellum omnium contra omnes'.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Also you do tell really good bad jokes.

[towith.livejournal.com]

The first joke I was told in Highschool? How do you stop a black guy from drowning? You take your foot off his head. I never was a fan of Highschool.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Were you educated in Scotland? Highschool seems a very unEnglish way of putting it.
Now 'Big School' I can understand. Secondary, Grammar, Public, Private, Comprehensive...all make some sense linguistically. You have a mainly US readership, I deem, and accomodate your vocabulary to suit, which is understandable.
Since my twenties, and until recently, I've been more interested in language than politics. The past couple of years have really changed that.
O tempora, O mores, if you'll excuse the descent into Ecphonesis.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Wales, my bad.
Just shows more of what I don't know.

[towith.livejournal.com]

Wales. Ysgol Uwchradd Pretatyn/Prestatyn High School. It was the header on the letters they sent me.

Language is mystery to me. I'm quite interested in English, though I barely know a word of any other. Which makes situations quite interesting, when the girl I'm currently courting knows six and accidentally slips into them when she's excited.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I, like Shakespeare, have small Latin and less Greek. This is a source of shame. English is my mother-tongue, and a blinding overarching one she is too. But there isn't very much about the English Language of which I'm not interested.
Snap about clever girls with many languages and cultural referents.
I'm actually sure there are many reasons you're on my f-list.

[towith.livejournal.com]

Possibly the root of confusion is the false dichotomy of the individual versus the group. The group cannot exist without individuals to populate it, just as the individual needs the group to complete his humanity. We need to live together, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that Hobbe's vision of damnation can't exist with-in the commune. When we turn on one another, be it in the name of the common or individual good, we are still setting the social contract alight.

I on the other hand am not always clever, even, dammit.

You began a conversation. In my book that makes you Mensa material.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

By the way, should you be offended allow me to apologise by buying you a pint next time you're in Town.

[vlion.livejournal.com]

Well, if a culture accepts and promotes responsible gun use, gun crimes are really quite rare. It's only in the ultra-violent zones where anything goes that gun crimes are common - but those are because criminal behavior is more accepted.

Money and quality of education are not correlated well. You do need *some* money- what you really need are motivated and good teachers. Turns out that studies have been done and so forth that observe it.

And, I'm sorry, man...I don't agree at all with drug decriminalization. I really don't see why its good for my fellow-citizens to be high/drunk/etc. I see it to be a huge detriment to society. I live in a college town - drugs and alcohol are relatively common and all it does is destroy and harm lives. Sure, I wish that people were responsible, but people aren't. That's the thing.

But I do agree: when the gov wants to do something, it needs to pay for it.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

We have no legal handguns in the UK. The argument is spurious. Lock 'em all up for a fuck of a long time. Throw away the key if neccessary.
Time for (in the UK at least) a war on guns.
As for drugs, like alcohol and cigarettes, tyhe governmet can tax them. It is impossible to legislate against self-reflectory behaviour, though governments have tried. You can argue that gun use falls into the same category, but I deem unsuccessfully: Drugs kill the people that use them; guns kill people other than those that use them. I would have thought the difference in terms of volition or informed consent was both significant and obvious, at least from a moral standpoint.
If it ain't, I shall have to clarify.

[vlion.livejournal.com]

Why not legalize firearms and promote responsible use?
there are more uses for guns than killing other people: they are fun to shoot recreationally, they also can be used in hunting wild game. They can also be a great crime deterrent- there was a case down in Alanta, Georgia, I think it was, where thousands of pistols plus training was given to women. The rape incidence rate dropped precipitously for years afterwards.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Just how much wild game do you think there is in England?
All the land is either owned or farmed by someone. We have been under plough for more than a thouand years.
The game that exists is owned, and bred for the shotgun (or with deer, the hunting rifle) which many chums of mine own, as do thousands of farmers and other countryfolk. Proof of need (as for wardens and gamekeepers) will often get you licensed.
Pistols however....and to be candid, even rifles...Deer hunting is so limited in spread: few in England, more in Scotland.

Compare murder rates per head of population between the two countries, and then by weapon. It may not agree with your ideological position, but....sometimes results compel. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible.

I'm surprised at the rape figures you mention. I was always led to believe that statistically speaking, most women knew their rapists (evidently that is an urban myth) but I'm amazed that the presence of handguns had such an effect.