United States Politics Thread 46

[Rounin Ryuuji]

We have a government, and a lot of people who want all responsibility to be abdicated to the government. This has not stopped idiots from doing idiotic things, but has enabled idiots (and some very smart or at least crafty people) to do idiotic things at scale.

…OK, this is a good point. I’ll have to think about this.

Eh, I think all this talk of "abdication" is nonsense. Humans create governments and other institutions to serve specific functions (how well a given example fills the role for which it was designed, and the validity of that role, are, of course, open to scrutiny), not because they're lazy (that's a common right-wing fiction) but because societies tend to specialisation. Ideally, I'd rather have city planning logistics taken care of by competent people who are responsible to the public for their actions (I know it doesn't always come out so nicely in practice, but it's the goal). The attempt is "delegation", not "abdication" — presumably, the humans not doing the city planning have other things they need to do. Too many people taking things into their own hands is too many cooks spoiling the broth.

If you, a decent and law-abiding person who actually lives in the neighborhood, get a noise ordinance passed, and then it's noon on a Sunday and your kid's having a birthday party, what's to stop the pettiest person on the block from calling the cops on you?

Absolutely nothing! It should be the responsibility of the cops to see this for what it is and take appropriate and proportional action. But I fail to see how this is relevant.

Throwing in non sequiturs is a popular strategy of those who can't actually defend their ideas. Or articulate them? I'm not sure if he's moving the goalposts, or genuinely just not good at getting the whole thought out at once, the thought seems fairly incoherent (or maybe just... silly).

[Ares Land]

Samurai carried swords because they were samurai; peasants didn't because they couldn't. The point of the US is that all decent citizens should be samurai. Many parts of Europe had similar restrictions, but decided that all decent citizens should be... peasants. This has never made sense to me - obviously the point of a republic should be to elevate the citizenry.

That's a nice hypothesis and I can see the appeal. Testing this against reality shows, however, that it doesn't work out. First, the US have 5 or 6 times our murder rate, second, we're not any less of a republic for having gun control.

FWIW gun control goes way back - we had it in the 16th century. The rationale back then was not to show the peasants who was boss, but specifically to avoid people getting hurt.

The good thing about gun control, btw, is that you can confront your annoying neighbour without facing a loaded gun.

And what does a functioning society look like? Can a society in which the people abdicate all responsibility to the government really be characterized as "functioning"?

Come on. Most places have gun control. They're evidently functioning, and neither do people there abdicate all responsability to the government.

[Nachtswalbe]

Note that most countries don't have the feudal structure that people reference when they talk about gun-owning "nobles" vs. "peasants"

[Moose-tache]

I think it's telling that when you try to abolish violent, predatory elites as a class, some people interpret this as "You want everyone to be peasants!" Maybe we can have neither. You know, just... not have a peasant/samurai split in the first place? If you equate the end of formalized social privilege with being "demoted to peasant," then I think that says more about you than about society.

[Travis B.]

I think it's telling that when you try to abolish violent, predatory elites as a class, some people interpret this as "You want everyone to be peasants!" Maybe we can have neither. You know, just... not have a peasant/samurai split in the first place? If you equate the end of formalized social privilege with being "demoted to peasant," then I think that says more about you than about society.

If anything, people who want worker ownership and management of capital want to uplift the population, so every worker owns part of their workplace and has a role in its management.

[Moose-tache]

Oh, one last detail about the "samurai" metaphor. They existed on the public dole. To have stable, formalized elites like that you have to have an official revenue stream. For European aristos, it was rents on huge tracts of farm land. Japan went full "Big Brother Nanny State Pinko" by just collecting the rice directly and meting it out to the names on the samurai list for resale. The American equivalent would be redirecting a large portion of the income tax to direct payments for the rich. Not sure how that's supposed to work with the plan to make everyone an honorary samurai.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The deconstruction of this argument is very interesting, and raises points I hadn't considered. I had thought it was an inept analogy from the start, but I had no idea it was this inept.

[Travis B.]

Oh, one last detail about the "samurai" metaphor. They existed on the public dole. To have stable, formalized elites like that you have to have an official revenue stream. For European aristos, it was rents on huge tracts of farm land. Japan went full "Big Brother Nanny State Pinko" by just collecting the rice directly and meting it out to the names on the samurai list for resale. The American equivalent would be redirecting a large portion of the income tax to direct payments for the rich. Not sure how that's supposed to work with the plan to make everyone an honorary samurai.

One could easily argue that a populace which is more economically self-sufficient is less subservient than one that existed under European or Japanese aristocracy, or for that matter modern American capitalism (in the case of workers owning and managing their own workplaces rather than being merely employed).

[Pabappa]

Oh, one last detail about the "samurai" metaphor. They existed on the public dole. To have stable, formalized elites like that you have to have an official revenue stream. For European aristos, it was rents on huge tracts of farm land. Japan went full "Big Brother Nanny State Pinko" by just collecting the rice directly and meting it out to the names on the samurai list for resale. The American equivalent would be redirecting a large portion of the income tax to direct payments for the rich. Not sure how that's supposed to work with the plan to make everyone an honorary samurai.

all analogies break down .... if they didnt, you'd be talking about the same thing on both ends of the sentence. nortaneous said:

Samurai carried swords because they were samurai; peasants didn't because they couldn't. The point of the US is that all decent citizens should be samurai.

to me, its obvious that he's referring to the right to bear arms, and not .... come on here, let's be reasonable .... not what you're saying. This is classic bad-faith argumentation and i dont blame nortaneous for not keeping up just the way i didnt keep up a few days ago. i could easily make sport of this and distort your argument the way you distorted his, but i'll leave it up to the collective imaginations of all the people here.

[bradrn]

to me, its obvious that he's referring to the right to bear arms, and not .... come on here, let's be reasonable .... not what you're saying. This is classic bad-faith argumentation and i dont blame nortaneous for not keeping up just the way i didnt keep up a few days ago.

If it helps, I agree with you here. Personally I think it’s a terrible argument, but there’s plenty of good responses to it without resorting to strawmen. (I note that at least some people did indeed provide good responses. There is hope.)

That being said, let us not forget that this is first and foremost a conlanging and conworlding forum, and there are lots of people who are interested in history here, and there are quite a few Japanese-speakers here, and we all do tend towards pedantry, so making historically inaccurate arguments here may not perhaps be the best idea…

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Samurai carried swords because they were samurai; peasants didn't because they couldn't. The point of the US is that all decent citizens should be samurai.

to me, its obvious that he's referring to the right to bear arms, and not .... come on here, let's be reasonable .... not what you're saying.

His original premise does involve this putative "right", but was actually that it was okay to threaten people with deadly force over either petty matters, or when there are apparently other less-extreme recourses, and that such threats of force constitute some sort of animalistic "dominance contest" and not a clear and present danger to everybody involved. It then drifts into some very bizarre use of an inept analogy about samurai.

This is classic bad-faith argumentation

Please demonstrate bad faith. Pulling apart a bad idea isn't that, in any understanding I have of the term.

Trying to pretend the Second Amendment is an absolute guarantee of a positive "right", granted without reservation, and equal to freedom of speech, religion, or expression (which even then have customary circumscriptions for certain malicious actions), but rather something granted for a specific purpose deemed necessary at the time at which it was written (which was more than two hundred years ago), which is not actually true now.

and i dont blame nortaneous for not keeping up just the way i didnt keep up a few days ago.

You say that as if he didn't have some fairly absurd notions pulled apart by several people.

i could easily make sport of this and distort your argument the way you distorted his, but i'll leave it up to the collective imaginations of all the people here.

How was it distorted? It looks to me like his ideas were taken at face value, as he presented them.

[Nachtswalbe]

Here is a (fictional) video demonstrating how to pretend to be crazy in order to distract a lone gunman (do not attempt):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uto5MhAV_W4
On a more serious note, the existence of hostage-negotiation teams and their experience defusing situations involving an armed opponent (while themselves bearing arms) shows that a method of 'first-strike' attack against percieved violence is ... not the only option.

The police themselves have de-escalation methods even if they may not use them

[Moose-tache]

to me, its obvious that he's referring to the right to bear arms, and not .... come on here, let's be reasonable .... not what you're saying. This is classic bad-faith argumentation and i dont blame nortaneous for not keeping up just the way i didnt keep up a few days ago.

Oh, come off it. Nort's statement was made in bad faith to begin with by misrepresenting his opponents as wanting to make everyone peasants, something that only makes sense in his personal world of highly elaborate metaphor. Giving him a taste of his own medicine by breaking down those ridiculous metaphors is hardly some terrible breach of public decorum.

[Travis B.]

to me, its obvious that he's referring to the right to bear arms, and not .... come on here, let's be reasonable .... not what you're saying. This is classic bad-faith argumentation and i dont blame nortaneous for not keeping up just the way i didnt keep up a few days ago.

Oh, come off it. Nort's statement was made in bad faith to begin with by misrepresenting his opponents as wanting to make everyone peasants, something that only makes sense in his personal world of highly elaborate metaphor. Giving him a taste of his own medicine by breaking down those ridiculous metaphors is hardly some terrible breach of public decorum.

Why should one, when someone else uses ridiculous metaphors, not be able to break down those metaphors, especially when said ridiculous metaphors were used in an attempt to make an equally ridiculous point (i.e. that we're trying to make everyone "peasants"). Maybe if someone wanted to make a more valid point they should have used more valid metaphors that do not break down when basic analysis is applied.

[Nortaneous]

I’ve come to the conclusion that, short of remaking the whole of society, very little can be done about gangs. Until we do remake society, the best that can be done is to prevent them from getting ahold of tools which they can use to do harm.

What? Isn't the state supposed to be the one legitimate gang? Monopoly on legitimate force and all that? If they can't even do that, what's the point of having a state?

It's said that a young woman could travel alone with a purse filled with gold across the entire length of the Mongol Empire and not have problems. If we can't do that, can we get Genghis Khan on the Ouija board and run him for president?

I should perhaps have emphasised the fact that guns are designed ‘in a way which other weapons aren’t’. There is a reason that mass murderers use guns and not swords: you can hurt more people, more harmfully, more quickly with a gun than with a sword.

If the Columbine shooters' bombs had worked, would school bombings have the cultural place school shootings do today? (Bombings were a live option in American culture then, but were primarily associated with political violence.)

If you, a decent and law-abiding person who actually lives in the neighborhood, get a noise ordinance passed, and then it's noon on a Sunday and your kid's having a birthday party, what's to stop the pettiest person on the block from calling the cops on you?

Absolutely nothing! It should be the responsibility of the cops to see this for what it is and take appropriate and proportional action. But I fail to see how this is relevant.

What's the point of putting laws on the books if they aren't going to be enforced?

I think it's telling that when you try to abolish violent, predatory elites as a class, some people interpret this as "You want everyone to be peasants!" Maybe we can have neither. You know, just... not have a peasant/samurai split in the first place? If you equate the end of formalized social privilege with being "demoted to peasant," then I think that says more about you than about society.

In a class system, there are privileges that are formally restricted to the upper classes. Those privileges can be either extended to everyone or prohibited for everyone.

Oh, one last detail about the "samurai" metaphor. They existed on the public dole. To have stable, formalized elites like that you have to have an official revenue stream. For European aristos, it was rents on huge tracts of farm land. Japan went full "Big Brother Nanny State Pinko" by just collecting the rice directly and meting it out to the names on the samurai list for resale. The American equivalent would be redirecting a large portion of the income tax to direct payments for the rich. Not sure how that's supposed to work with the plan to make everyone an honorary samurai.

Sure, ideally everyone would be an aristocrat and derive income from ownership of land and shares in fully automated enterprises, but full automation isn't practical yet.

[Travis B.]

I think it's telling that when you try to abolish violent, predatory elites as a class, some people interpret this as "You want everyone to be peasants!" Maybe we can have neither. You know, just... not have a peasant/samurai split in the first place? If you equate the end of formalized social privilege with being "demoted to peasant," then I think that says more about you than about society.

In a class system, there are privileges that are formally restricted to the upper classes. Those privileges can be either extended to everyone or prohibited for everyone.

The prevalence of dueling was in part due to middle-class individuals trying to take on rights previously limited to the upper class. Of course it showed itself to be a bad idea, which is why it is now generally banned and very few people duel today. Likewise, with gun ownership, the US today shows what happens when you have widespread gun ownership, and shows why gun control is needed by providing an example of what happens without it.

Oh, one last detail about the "samurai" metaphor. They existed on the public dole. To have stable, formalized elites like that you have to have an official revenue stream. For European aristos, it was rents on huge tracts of farm land. Japan went full "Big Brother Nanny State Pinko" by just collecting the rice directly and meting it out to the names on the samurai list for resale. The American equivalent would be redirecting a large portion of the income tax to direct payments for the rich. Not sure how that's supposed to work with the plan to make everyone an honorary samurai.

Sure, ideally everyone would be an aristocrat and derive income from ownership of land and shares in fully automated enterprises, but full automation isn't practical yet.

Assuming that full automation is not feasible, wouldn't the best solution be to make every worker a part owner in their workplace?

[Nortaneous]

Likewise, with gun ownership, the US today shows what happens when you have widespread gun ownership, and shows why gun control is needed by providing an example of what happens without it.

The US is a violent country by European standards and a peaceful one by New World standards. Why apply the standards of the side of the Atlantic we aren't on?

Apparently Finland has a comparable household gun ownership rate.

Assuming that full automation is not feasible, wouldn't the best solution be to make every worker a part owner in their workplace?

That's good from the perspective of incentive alignment. It's also not as uncommon as you might think - if you put in two years as an L1 at an Amazon FC your RSUs start vesting. I know a guy who actually did this. But it's bad for diversification, so there are situations where it's rational to sell your share.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

What? Isn't the state supposed to be the one legitimate gang?

Monopoly on legitimate force and all that? If they can't even do that, what's the point of having a state?

I don't think most people would consider that the sole, or even the primary, purpose of the State. Maintaining law and order and having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force are parts of the State, but I think many would also consider the purpose to be the maintenance of the equitability of society. These may or may not involve the use of force.

It's said that a young woman could travel alone with a purse filled with gold across the entire length of the Mongol Empire and not have problems. If we can't do that, can we get Genghis Khan on the Ouija board and run him for president?

Do we have any evidence of this?

I should perhaps have emphasised the fact that guns are designed ‘in a way which other weapons aren’t’. There is a reason that mass murderers use guns and not swords: you can hurt more people, more harmfully, more quickly with a gun than with a sword.

If the Columbine shooters' bombs had worked, would school bombings have the cultural place school shootings do today? (Bombings were a live option in American culture then, but were primarily associated with political violence.)

Is it to be assumed there is a good-faith reason for asking this question?

If you, a decent and law-abiding person who actually lives in the neighborhood, get a noise ordinance passed, and then it's noon on a Sunday and your kid's having a birthday party, what's to stop the pettiest person on the block from calling the cops on you?

Absolutely nothing! It should be the responsibility of the cops to see this for what it is and take appropriate and proportional action. But I fail to see how this is relevant.

What's the point of putting laws on the books if they aren't going to be enforced?

Nobody's suggesting laws not be enforced (your suggestion appears to be that they are unlikely to be ever enforced, which given that in much of the world laws seem to be, in fact, enforced, is untrue, and that the exception ought to be solveable by imitating places in the world where laws are enforced, which does not require private citizens to possess, much less openly display and issue demands while carrying, objects of lethal violence), the point of contention is by whom (the State or private citizens) and the degree of lethal force it is acceptable to threaten in such a context.

I think it's telling that when you try to abolish violent, predatory elites as a class, some people interpret this as "You want everyone to be peasants!" Maybe we can have neither. You know, just... not have a peasant/samurai split in the first place? If you equate the end of formalized social privilege with being "demoted to peasant," then I think that says more about you than about society.

In a class system, there are privileges that are formally restricted to the upper classes. Those privileges can be either extended to everyone or prohibited for [sic] everyone.

In an equitable society, not all privileges can be so generalised. By this logic, the slavery question could have been reasonably solved by making enslavement race-neutral, rather than abolishing the privilege of enslaving people (lest we forget that serfdom was not resolved by people of all classes being able to own serfs, but rather by the abolition of serfdom). In an equitable society, everybody ought to be free of threats of lethal violence by anybody (the State should also not hold power of life and death, but this is another discussion, though best to nip any disingenuous raising of the death penalty as a distraction), so the privilege of threatening lethal violence is abolished because there are compelling reasons to abolish it, as there are compelling reasons to abolish the privilege of owning other human beings.

Oh, one last detail about the "samurai" metaphor. They existed on the public dole. To have stable, formalized elites like that you have to have an official revenue stream. For European aristos, it was rents on huge tracts of farm land. Japan went full "Big Brother Nanny State Pinko" by just collecting the rice directly and meting it out to the names on the samurai list for resale. The American equivalent would be redirecting a large portion of the income tax to direct payments for the rich. Not sure how that's supposed to work with the plan to make everyone an honorary samurai.

Sure, ideally everyone would be an aristocrat and derive income from ownership of land and shares in fully automated enterprises, but full automation isn't practical yet.

So why not actually justify why allowing everybody to threaten everybody else with lethal violence is a good thing, rather than going round in circles and trying to pretend guns are not implements of lethal violence?

[Travis B.]

Likewise, with gun ownership, the US today shows what happens when you have widespread gun ownership, and shows why gun control is needed by providing an example of what happens without it.

The US is a violent country by European standards and a peaceful one by New World standards. Why apply the standards of the side of the Atlantic we aren't on?

The standards I'm holding the US to are those of developed nations, and by those standards the US is definitely a violent nation. It is not reasonable to compare the US within developing nations just because it shares the same hemisphere with them.

[Ares Land]

The US is a violent country by European standards and a peaceful one by New World standards. Why apply the standards of the side of the Atlantic we aren't on?

I'm always amused by that sort of argument. Does gunpowder react differently in America?

Apparently Finland has a comparable household gun ownership rate.

Open carry is probably more of a factor (to say nothing of concealed carry) as is the relative lack of registration.
It's not like there are no problems with guns in Europe either. Parts of my family are what you Americans would call white trash, I suppose, and there were plenty of guns lying around: hunting guns and service weapons from the war. Accidents definitely happened, also one or two deaths I'm convinced were not accidental.

While we're comparing culture, I don't agree gangs are inevitable. I don't think we have something that compares to a North American gang. (Also biker gangs: I remember reading a Québecois thriller and thinking, man, what's so scary about bikers?) I mean, there's organized crime, yeah, but it doesn't quite reach that level. Cultural differences are difficult to figure out, but it's hard to exclude different attitudes about guns as a factor.