US Senate rejects universal (expanded) background checks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353402]Anarchism might come about one day, or [insert ideal political philosophy here] but until it actually appears, we should be working within what reality is to bring about positive change (and I support the pragmatic type of utilitarianism that doesn't go to logical extremes).[/QUOTE] i believe working towards anarchism is a positive change, not just through the final implementation but through the processes that go along with it. people become self-sustaining. groups of people begin to work to help the poor and needy. communes begin to win self-determination, workers win more rights.

[QUOTE=person11;40353240]Having a list of every gun and every gun owner would be an invaluable tool for law enforcement, just like criminal records and DNA records, in case anything happens involving those guns and/or those owners. [/QUOTE] So you support it as an investigation tool as it would do nothing to stop crime? I agree. It would not lower any gun related crimes at all.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353349]However, in every instance of a society I can think of, some kind of hierarchy, and rules, and enforcement of those rules, ends up happening. I would only support anarchism if it was sustainable, and made people happier, wealthier and generally better off than the denizens of every state formed to date.[/QUOTE] Anarchism is stupid. The point is that there should always be a way to keep the government in check. Voting is one way, and keeping the populous armed is another. That way, the government never forgets that it is serving the people. I'm also not so sure why distrusting the government is such an irrational thing to do, especially since the government imprisoned its own people without due process of law, simply because they were of a certain ethnicity: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment[/url] People are still alive who remember being put in camps [B]in their own country.[/B] But it's okay, we won the war! Yay! The ends ALWAYS justify the means! What's hilariously ironic is that it took a republican president to sign reparations for those effected: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988[/url] Government is needed, but it should never forget that it's there to serve the people. Not the other way around.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40353414]i believe working towards anarchism is a positive change, not just through the final implementation but through the processes that go along with it. people become self-sustaining. groups of people begin to work to help the poor and needy. communes begin to win self-determination, workers win more rights.[/QUOTE] That ideal would require a dramatic evolution of the entire species. Because it doesn't take a lot to permanently fuck up a lack of government - Just a few assholes with guns.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40353423]That ideal would require a dramatic evolution of the entire species. Because it doesn't take a lot to permanently fuck up a lack of government - Just a few assholes with guns.[/QUOTE] that's why you bring about internal and grassroots change. you don't simply abolish the government, you agitate people to the point they realize a government is no longer necessary and they abolish it together.

Anarchy is a vacuum, not a way of running things. Anarchy will always give way to government no matter what. It's how people are. The reason anarchy will never work is the same reason communism will never work: Human nature. We would have to be robots for either one of them to work.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40353430]that's why you bring about internal and grassroots change. you don't simply abolish the government, you agitate people to the point they realize a government is no longer necessary and they abolish it together.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, this relies on the assumption everybody agrees with your political philosophy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40353430]that's why you bring about internal and grassroots change. you don't simply abolish the government, you agitate people to the point they realize a government is no longer necessary and they abolish it together.[/QUOTE] And yet, someone will get it into their heads that they want to seize power, they'll gain the support of enough idiots to become a threat, and the streets will run red with blood. We've seen it happen to actual countries. Anarchy and libertarianism are the shortest-lived forms of government.

The other thing about getting everybody to agree to a single political philosophy is that not everybody is a blank slate. You can't rewrite people to have certain views, and you certainly can't socialize children into it either. Totalitarian states, communes/experiments are an example of this. They rot from the inside out.

It assumes as well that people *want* to live in peace. I believe that an awful lot of people need to have enemies to survive, for their worldview to survive. If there aren't any enemies, they'll find reasons to make enemies of people.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40353435]Anarchy is a vacuum, not a way of running things. Anarchy will always give way to government no matter what. It's how people are. The reason anarchy will never work is the same reason communism will never work: Human nature. We would have to be robots for either one of them to work.[/QUOTE] While I certainly feel as if anarchism is an inappropriate way of organising society, using Human nature as an argument really ignores the 'not actually agreed on' nature of human nature and should be avoided.

This totally has to do with a universal backround check bill.

I hadn't really paid any attention to this bill but from what I understand I would not have been able to trade my old revolver for a classic car to a twenty year old; and even if he was of age I would have had to pay an FFL to transfer it. If I'm not mistaken... so yeah fuck that.

Anarchism is basically government but at the most local level, with individual neighborhoods being given power and alliances with other neighborhoods, with a hierarchy that helps organize, but doesn't command. Anarchists do not want anarchy, they just want government to be as local as possible. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40353280]yea token support to make him look like he was championing healthcare reform before he let the insurance industry write the bill for him. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] i think most trust and support of the government is irrational tbh. the government can sometimes fulfill limited roles pretty well, but on the whole they are still a ruling class and still will exercise power that limit the liberty and safety of individuals. this goes beyond drone strikes and into the territory of things like government giving certain groups of people privilege, as you can see be done throughout the ages. whether it's simply corn farmers being given cash not to grow food, or as deep as having police squads that target minority groups, government always ends up screwing someone.[/QUOTE] If Universal Healthcare passed, meaning if 60 Democrats managed to end the filibuster, Obama would have been credited as a champion of the healthcare bill. He did not want to use the shitty Republican alternative bill, but was forced to by circumstance. Government can do bad things, but it is usually at the hand of private elites. I think that, in this country, in which corporations can do a very large amount of things without regulations, private corporations and the rich are the real limiters of liberty and the givers of privilege. When the government does withstand corruption, it can be a shield for the poor against the rich. If one reformed the US government to limit campaign contributions and regulate them, end the filibuster, outlaw police actions and regulate drones as well as close guantanamo, the government could balloon to any size without becoming a threat, but that is jsut a matter of my opinion of ideal governments. I guess I just see government as a solution for problems created by capitalism.

[QUOTE=person11;40354068]Anarchism is basically government but at the most local level, with individual neighborhoods being given power and alliances with other neighborhoods, with a hierarchy that helps organize, but doesn't command. Anarchists do not want anarchy, they just want government to be as local as possible. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] If Universal Healthcare passed, meaning if 60 Democrats managed to end the filibuster, Obama would have been credited as a champion of the healthcare bill. He did not want to use the shitty Republican alternative bill, but was forced to by circumstance. Government can do bad things, but it is usually at the hand of private elites. I think that, in this country, in which corporations can do a very large amount of things without regulations, private corporations and the rich are the real limiters of liberty and the givers of privilege. When the government does withstand corruption, it can be a shield for the poor against the rich. If one reformed the US government to limit campaign contributions and regulate them, end the filibuster, outlaw police actions and regulate drones as well as close guantanamo, the government could balloon to any size without becoming a threat, but that is jsut a matter of my opinion of ideal governments. I guess I just see government as a solution for problems created by capitalism.[/QUOTE] Do you actually believe this? Republicans had nothing to do with obamacare. They weren't asked to help, allowed any input, or influenced it in any way. Do a quick google and see who held the majority in the house, the senate (fairly sure you know which party Obama is) Obama (and the rest of the democrats) gift wrapped that bill for the insurance industry. Don't try to remake history and blame republicans.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353440]Unfortunately, this relies on the assumption everybody agrees with your political philosophy.[/QUOTE] the beauty is it doesn't. anarchist societies are meant to be built around diversity of ideology. if one group simply takes hold, then a state based on that idea will generally form.

BILL TITLE: Affordable Health Care for America Act [url]http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml[/url] [url]http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396[/url] my automerge....

plus living in a place with a homogenous population is dull anyways.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40354527]the beauty is it doesn't. anarchist societies are meant to be built around diversity of ideology. if one group simply takes hold, then a state based on that idea will generally form.[/QUOTE] Which means anarchism would pretty much end?

I thought it was common knowledge that the healthcare bill was based on a version written by newt Gingrich in the 90s to combat bill Clinton's bill.