Hmmmm, knife control now?

[Roopod 0]

Let's all remember the Enron debacle with some perspective of all the participants. It was the deregulation of power in California that created the environment that let Enron go hog wild. Corrupt government officials were the initiating guilty party. Today we have the Public Private Partnership scenario which I believe Mussolini called Corporatism back in his day. Of course Corporatism is also known as Fascism but nobody uses those obsolete phrases anymore so instead we call it Public Private Partnerships. Which state was that Senator from in the clip? California, yep, you bet! The whole fault of the energy crises in California lies at the altar of the State Government, and still does today. Has California built any additional power plants since then or do they still import power from their surrounding states? Want to know more? Then read this: LINK

Edited July 21, 2008 by Roopod

[eraser_tr 29]

Public sector puts people first

 

That heading sums it all up, and circles back to what I said earlier. The problem is money has become more important than people.

[Roopod 0]

Oh and its December 24th 2012, not the 12th the world is supposed to end.

 

Or is it? LINK: December 21, 2012

[Longestpants 1]

I can't wait until that date rolls around and nothing happens.

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

quoting eraser----> "And of all things, I'm going into law"

 

Good to hear, from reading things youve said, it would be a breath of fresh air to have someone like you in their ranks..

[+Typhoid 231]

"Fire departments? are you totally nuts? "

 

actually there are quite a few contracted out, and ambulance services, power companies, water utilities, prisons, etc.

 

Most of the air tankers for forestfire fighting is contracted out.

 

I would say your response illustrates precisely that difference between collectivist/liberals and free-market/conservatives. We think, you feel and respond with a predictable emotional response that ignores realities.

 

"What the hell would happen there? " the fires get put out.

 

"fire companies not responding to calls because there's no obligation to " obligation is there. The billing to the municple, county or state agency gets resolved later. So far as not responding, that actually happens sometimes with City fire depts not responding to fires outside of city limits, as in "no obligation to" and not covered by county taxes......

 

"Would they hand a bill to someone whose house just burned down?" typical emotional response. Obviously not if they didn't put the fire out!

 

"No, not everything. Thats a blatant distortion." well then it is up to you to define the limits, isn't it? As I said earlier, that is what defines the difference between us.

 

"Public sector puts people first

That heading sums it all up, and circles back to what I said earlier. The problem is money has become more important than people."

 

the problem with that is; it is the public sector that all to often does not put "the people first" because its all about their budgets and growing departments. People come last. Just go to any DMV.....

 

In private enterprise people do come first - as in the customer. No satisfied customer, no money. No money, no profit for the stockholders.

 

by the way, in your semi-hysterical anti-capitalist rhetoric - what investment portfolio do you have? Where do you think those mutual funds, stock investments, banks for savings deposits, etc.; comes from?

 

markets work fine when the anti-capitalist collectivists in the various governments let them and do not interfere with them for their own political exploitation. The power grid problems in California and our current high energy costs are outstanding examples of the results of such interference by economically illiterate anti-capitalist politicians (who are predominantly, although sadly not exclusively, in one particular party)

 

"quoting eraser----> "And of all things, I'm going into law"

cool. I will respect your viewpoint far more if you take a pledge, and actually follow through, with staying in the Public Defenders Office or DA. No private practice there. If you are going to be consistent then you have to advocate for full public funding and pay scales for ALL lawyers since we obviously cannot trust private practice lawyers with having any concern for their clients, its all just about money after all, and everyone has the RIGHT to legal representation.....

 

"the problem lies with the practices of HMOs preventing people from getting care and coverage for their benefit. Anyone would be on that side after having been through their ****"

 

two members of my immediate family have been taken care of, and their lives saved (one just two weeks ago), by private ambulances contracted to the county, by private hospitals, by free-market HMOs, and individual doctors working within their private health network and hospitals. So don't try shoveling that garbage in my direction.

 

Out.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Typhoid

[+pcpilot 181]

Tradionally it was the taxes we paid that provided fire, ambulance, and utitlity services. So all that tax money is going where now? To pay for more goverment. And I havent seen an improvement in service even though some do function well since contracting them out. If there was a problem with the service ran by goverment, then why not fix it instead of contracting out? There certainly hasnt been the promised savings to the consumer/taxpayer. The contracters in Iraq sure aint impressing me. In San Diego, they even charge you now to use the ambulance that before was paid by your taxes. How do poor/low/fixed income people pay for the service? Thru medi-care or welfare, taxpayer paid for! Oh wait, you can buy ambulance insurance now, I feel better...

Edited July 22, 2008 by pcpilot

[+Tailspin 3]

I don't know of any Govt. run ambulance services in my area...and they will send you or the responsible party a bill even if they don't save your life. What is the difference in paying for a fire call and paying for an ambulance ride? I don't see a problem with privately owned and operated Fire Departments...especially in rural areas with inadequate tax bases to pay for the proper equipment and training.

[eraser_tr 29]

Despite what you may think, I'm not some rabid anti-capitalist. By and large it works all over the world, but its become so out of control here with the Gordon Gecko "greed is good" mentality. Making money is good, everyone, including me wants to make money. Europe still follows capitalism and they're farther to the left than I am. But it has become so out of control here that huge business(with no connection whatsoever to customers besides a financial transaction) don't care about the consequences to people, just their bottom line. Now I'm not suggesting business becoming charity or anything, but to simply think ahead of the next quarter and be careful that their actions aren't doing any harm, regardless of whether its illegal or not.

 

Markets work under the right conditions, the problem is those conditions aren't terribly realistic once you get the the nationwide or international level. I've taken my share of economics and understand how it works quite well. Actually, I've seen most of the opposite. Remember Phill Gram from McCain's campaign? look through that last article roopod posted, look who shows up. Much of our problems now are because of the kinds of deregulator he championed, before all that deregulatrion, everything worked just fine.

 

There were rules, people had to play by them, they did and it worked. An analogy, imagine playing a game, monopoly for instance, but certain players, say the banker and richest player could change the rules, or there were no rules. Chaos.

 

Theres a game X3: Reunion I'm playing. Space combat, trading and exploration. It has a whole free market system that works, but its also more of a bare bones capitalism of buying and selling goods and services and the textbook economics you appear to believe works universally in the real world, work in the game because its rules and system are hard-coded into the game. Pure supply and demand govern every one of the thousands of space stations and ships buzzing about and they don't screw with it. Nearly everything is automatic and fluent, there's true competition, there are no barriers to striking out on your own to earn a fortune either, practically no market externalities. No market manipulation, no speculation, insider trading, etc, etc etc....

 

The problem is, the real world simply can't duplicate the kind of sterility and universal goodwill you can program. I can't just buy a delivery truck and drive around to various stores, factories and ports buying and selling anything on my own volition. I can't just go to walmart and buy a crate of iPods or whatever at their dirt cheap china prices, then drive over to radioshack or circuit city and sell that crate of ipods at their higher retail price and turn a profit.

 

Glad the system is working out for you and your family, but its not working out here. You haven't been through their **** yet like I have. When you have to fight over coverage and the amount of care needed, and have conditions that prevent you from being approved for an individual policy, the problems become readily apparent and absolutely intolerable.

[GwynO 16]

Interesting how this one evolved. I think we see the difference between the right and left here with regard not only to knife control, but all kinds of government control, is that the right believe (wishfully and naively) that human nature will resolve all, we will sort ourselves out in a free market economy because were mostly such good honest people that we don't need control. In the case of gun and knife control wouldn't it be just great if everyone was so happy and nice that we could trust everybody to carry a knife or gun with them, well get real! I have been the victim of knife crime on more than one occasion as well as being on the receiving end of a hammer, my reaction is, I think fairly typical of those on the left in Britain, which is that we need to have a police force answerable to the government that enforces the existing law. It is perfectly legal to own a hammer, knife, sword, crossbow, screw driver or baseball bat in the right place, i.e. your home, workplace, camping site, what it is not legal to do under any circumstances is walk down the street with a knife in your pocket, having a baseball bat in your hand walking into a corner shop is illegal too and the issue of knife control in this country is about enforcing these laws. Why should anyone object to the government control over that part of our lives unless we actually want to carry a knife on the street?? The typical right wing response to knife or indeed gun control is that bad sorts carry them therefore "I" should have one to be the equalizer then everyone is in a M.A.D. Free market model safety condition... great, of course this situation is better than having some sissy nanny evil commy state control telling me what I can and can't carry right?

 

If the right are guilty of living in cloud cuckoo land by thinking our social environment can be entrusted to individual human nature let alone should be, so is the extreme left view that the state alone can or should dictate our personal environment. I disagree with the calls to ban all military knives or swords from sale just because there is evil as this is excessive, all that needs to be done is to ensure that people don't overstep the mark from owning and using something in their private space into other peoples space and this is something that cannot be entrusted to everyone being cooperative, neither can it be tendered out to private security firms. These issues are exactly why we need a police force in the first place.

[eraser_tr 29]

If the right are guilty of living in cloud cuckoo land by thinking our social environment can be entrusted to individual human nature let alone should be, so is the extreme left view that the state alone can or should dictate our personal environment.

 

So, you're saying that neither extreme is completely correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GwynO 16]

So, you're saying that neither extreme is completely correct?

 

Exactamundo, the extremes of both left and right are characterised by a blinkered conviction in either the evil of the collective or the evil of the individual, they are largely a paranoid and fearful people who share only the worst traits of Humanity, chiefly the conviction that their own beliefs are the only legitimate truth which is under threat from anyone who disagrees with them. The Extreme Capitalists and Commies alike gain their sense of purpose from a siege like mentality that to even allow a compromise on policy between them is to suffer some terrible shame. I am happy to adapt my views when faced with new information and would rather a form of government, economic and civic, that does the same; it was right to stop the police from abusing stop and search powers in the 1990's but with the growing problem of youths unafraid to carry knives, or to use them, we need to bring these powers back. Given that society has moved on somewhat in the previous decade there is no reason to keep viewing stop and search now, as we did in the 1990's, it has less to do with putting blacks in prison and more to do with stopping young people from killing each other whatever their skin colour.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Mab Glyndwr

[+Tailspin 3]

So your solution is to once again give police powers you know they're going to abuse? How do the police know who to stop? I suppose if you "look" guilty to them then you automatically forfeit your presumption of innocence? Its bad for police to assume something because of skin color but OK if you are within a certain age range, wear your hair or dress a certain way, go to certain clubs or taverns, or live in a certain part of town? Why not just let the police come onto the subway and search all the working class folks on their way to work every morning? They may have a knife. Basic human rights are just that. You don't get to pick and choose when and where they can be ignored...or at least you're not supposed to. It has been proved time after time that too much power in the hands of Govt. will lead to the abuse of that power.

[GwynO 16]

So your solution is to once again give police powers you know they're going to abuse? How do the police know who to stop? I suppose if you "look" guilty to them then you automatically forfeit your presumption of innocence? Its bad for police to assume something because of skin color but OK if you are within a certain age range, wear your hair or dress a certain way, go to certain clubs or taverns, or live in a certain part of town? Why not just let the police come onto the subway and search all the working class folks on their way to work every morning? They may have a knife. Basic human rights are just that. You don't get to pick and choose when and where they can be ignored...or at least you're not supposed to. It has been proved time after time that too much power in the hands of Govt. will lead to the abuse of that power.

 

"So your solution is to once again give police powers you know they're going to abuse?" Do I? More importantly how do you know that? Convinced that the police cannot fail but to abuse power and if so why?

 

"How do the police know who to stop?" .."OK if you are within a certain age range, wear your hair or dress a certain way, go to certain clubs or taverns, or live in a certain part of town?" Yup, as unpopular as it may seem, if your looking for potential knife carriers, you don't waste police efforts searching little gray haired women or little kids as much as you would search for "youths" aged 11 to 35, profiling works. It may be unpopular to admit to the situation, that disproportionate numbers of some age, economic, sub-cultural or even... racial groups, suffer from and commit violent crime with weapons but thats the sad situation. Targeting people getting onto buses or trains is one example used recently in Birmingham, it worked too as it discouraged idiots from taking weapons on public transport which is one small success if it made life a bit more difficult for those wanting to carry weapons. Plus having metal detectors on public transport means everybody goes through it regardless of what makes us different, therefore if groups in society have something to fear from such systems it is down to what they carry with them, not about what they are.

 

Human rights.. Rights have obligations, the right to freedom of movement in the U.K. is tempered by the obligation that in doing so you obey the law not to carry a knife without good reason (no, self protection is not a good reason). Is it a basic right to object to being searched? Personally I have nothing to fear as I do not ever carry anything illegal and feel reassured when I see a police officer, although I can imagine how I would feel seeing one if I had something illegal on me... I guess I would feel threatened and persecuted.. solution - Empty pockets, abide by the law of the land, problem solved.

 

Don't people have a right to be protected from violence over and above the right of an individual to the privacy of their personal possessions? Would you object to your suitcase being scanned in the airport? Would you object to a weapon detection system being used by police to monitor public spaces?

 

I agree that too much power can be abused by Government, however this is not too much power, in my opinion it is reasonable that a Government agency such as the police have the right to search for weapons especially with the newer technology now being trialled in the Midlands, actually stopping someone need only occur after the weapon has been detected passively rather than the old fashioned trial and error stop and turn out your pockets routine. Or do you believe that police should not even be looking for weapons at all, is it an invasion of some basic "right" and if so which one?

[+pcpilot 181]

So, you're saying that neither extreme is completely correct?

 

Couldnt agree more. The politics of polarization have poisoned the the ability of this country to compromise and function as it was intended. Moderation has become veiwed as weakwilled evil by both extremes when it is what reasonable men have pursued since the dawn of time. Wierd how that happens...

 

 

Human rights.. Rights have obligations, the right to freedom of movement in the U.K. is tempered by the obligation that in doing so you obey the law not to carry a knife without good reason (no, self protection is not a good reason). Is it a basic right to object to being searched? Personally I have nothing to fear as I do not ever carry anything illegal and feel reassured when I see a police officer, although I can imagine how I would feel seeing one if I had something illegal on me... I guess I would feel threatened and persecuted.. solution - Empty pockets, abide by the law of the land, problem solved.

 

Don't people have a right to be protected from violence over and above the right of an individual to the privacy of their personal possessions? Would you object to your suitcase being scanned in the airport? Would you object to a weapon detection system being used by police to monitor public spaces?

 

I agree that too much power can be abused by Government, however this is not too much power, in my opinion it is reasonable that a Government agency such as the police have the right to search for weapons especially with the newer technology now being trialled in the Midlands, actually stopping someone need only occur after the weapon has been detected passively rather than the old fashioned trial and error stop and turn out your pockets routine. Or do you believe that police should not even be looking for weapons at all, is it an invasion of some basic "right" and if so which one?

 

I agree rights have obligations. That is the hallmark of any good civilization. But to search when nothing has been done wrong even if someone fits a so-called profile smacks of a rights violation in itself. Remember Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and countless other dictatorships. Its called un-lawful search and seizure. Americans hate it. Even if the search is completely un-obtrusive with modern technology, it still smacks of "Big Brother" watching us. What gave him the right to do that? 9/11 and the possibility of more such attacks? Im sorry, but aint we fighting a war because of that attack? They hit us, we hit back, simple as that. And law-abiding citizens dont lose the rights thier soldiers are told they are defending. We require a warrent here after due evidence has been demonstrated. Its in our Bill of Rights. In America it is presumed you are innocent till proven guilty. Yes violence has become more prevalent, only a blind fool would think not. But I, and the VAST majority of law-abiding Americans, should not be required to relinquish one iota of our civil rights to satisfy anyone elses justifications...that is wrong. To violate human and civil rights in the name of crime fighting, or terrorism, or whatever the "in" word is this particular day is taking the simplistic easy way out of a difficult issue/problem at the expense of freedom. Thats un-American. That is exactly the kind of goverment interferance this topic was started in protest of.

 

Bill of Rights...

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Edited July 23, 2008 by pcpilot

[+pcpilot 181]

So your solution is to once again give police powers you know they're going to abuse? How do the police know who to stop? I suppose if you "look" guilty to them then you automatically forfeit your presumption of innocence? Its bad for police to assume something because of skin color but OK if you are within a certain age range, wear your hair or dress a certain way, go to certain clubs or taverns, or live in a certain part of town? Why not just let the police come onto the subway and search all the working class folks on their way to work every morning? They may have a knife. Basic human rights are just that. You don't get to pick and choose when and where they can be ignored...or at least you're not supposed to. It has been proved time after time that too much power in the hands of Govt. will lead to the abuse of that power.

 

 

Couldnt agree more...well said.

[eraser_tr 29]

Lucky the police can still give you a sense of reassurance. Local cops here are dread instilling as they're nothing but improvised tax collectors. They pulled the same BS speeding charge on both my father and next door neighbor, and the judge simply tossed out evidence prooving the ticket was falsified and physically impossible for the alleged charge to have happened. Because if the cop said you were going 50mph (in a 30 zone right before a red light, had either of them been going 50, they would have run the red light and certainly caused an accident passing through traffic that was going 50) Not to mention the one whose job seems to be to stand around outside the local supermarket/mini-mall strip and harass kids for no reason.

 

Re: knives again, this is one area I do agree with those on the right: simply carry a bigger knife (like in crocodile dundee and a guy tries to mug him with a switchblade, and dundee pulls out a machete )

 

And actually, the only times such measures are anything but violations of rights would be in the immediacy of a crisis (like manhattan the day of 9/11) People here are remarkable for pulling together, making it unnecessary. With the vast majority of emergency services tied up in lower manhattan, the rest of the city could have devolved into no man's land, yet crime was lower than it normally would have been.

Edited July 23, 2008 by eraser_tr

[+Dave 2,319]

Ok how in the hell did this get derailed like this? Stay on target.....

[+pcpilot 181]

And actually, the only times such measures are anything but violations of rights would be in the immediacy of a crisis (like manhattan the day of 9/11) People here are remarkable for pulling together, making it unnecessary. With the vast majority of emergency services tied up in lower manhattan, the rest of the city could have devolved into no man's land, yet crime was lower than it normally would have been.

 

I'll never forget that day. Despite the shock, sadness, uncertainty, and anger, it was heart-warming to see this good country come together like that. You know, I was in San Diego at the time. We were PISSED at how bad NY had treated our Tony Gwynn in the '98 World Series. Any NY'er was definately persona non grata after that. When 9/11 happened, all that disapeered. All San Diegans wanted to do was help any way they could. I was so proud of them during that crisis...

 

And yes, to get back on topic, I might allow a certain agreement to your statement about the immediacy of a crisis. Even then, its tough for me to relinquish any of my liberties except for the good of the country on a very temporary basis. You know, this has really been an excellent, thought provoking discussion. Whats the old saying, two heads are better than one? Theres another one too...the more eyes looking at something, the better the perception.

Edited July 23, 2008 by pcpilot

[+Tailspin 3]

"So your solution is to once again give police powers you know they're going to abuse?" Do I? More importantly how do you know that? Convinced that the police cannot fail but to abuse power and if so why?

 

"it was right to stop the police from abusing stop and search powers in the 1990's"

By your own admission.

 

A good case in point in the US is the abuse of the drug trafficking laws. Specifically the seizure of property associated with profits from drug trafficking. Law enforcement took this law and ran with it to the extent that they are seizing property of individuals caught with minimal amounts of drugs with absolutely no evidence that said property was obtained with drug money. Do you know that if you are caught carrying more than a few thousand dollars in cash the police can seize it under the guise that its could be drug money and you will have to explain how you came into possession of said money? I could go on and on and on. All I can say is if you don't know about these abuses then you aren't paying attention.

 

"How do the police know who to stop?" .."OK if you are within a certain age range, wear your hair or dress a certain way, go to certain clubs or taverns, or live in a certain part of town?" Yup, as unpopular as it may seem, if your looking for potential knife carriers, you don't waste police efforts searching little gray haired women or little kids as much as you would search for "youths" aged 11 to 35, profiling works. It may be unpopular to admit to the situation, that disproportionate numbers of some age, economic, sub-cultural or even... racial groups, suffer from and commit violent crime with weapons but thats the sad situation. Targeting people getting onto buses or trains is one example used recently in Birmingham, it worked too as it discouraged idiots from taking weapons on public transport which is one small success if it made life a bit more difficult for those wanting to carry weapons. Plus having metal detectors on public transport means everybody goes through it regardless of what makes us different, therefore if groups in society have something to fear from such systems it is down to what they carry with them, not about what they are.

 

Ahhh...the old "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." argument. People who proscribe to this line of thinking generally have never been the subject of such abuse of powers and are the most likely to squeal the loudest when it finally hits home that they are no more secure from those abuses than the "sub-cultures" they think "deserve" such treatment.

 

Human rights.. Rights have obligations, the right to freedom of movement in the U.K. is tempered by the obligation that in doing so you obey the law not to carry a knife without good reason (no, self protection is not a good reason). Is it a basic right to object to being searched? Personally I have nothing to fear as I do not ever carry anything illegal and feel reassured when I see a police officer, although I can imagine how I would feel seeing one if I had something illegal on me... I guess I would feel threatened and persecuted.. solution - Empty pockets, abide by the law of the land, problem solved.

 

That's where the United States differs. We believe that self protection is a God given Right and no government has the power to supercede it. And YES! I do object to being searched if the govt. does not have reasonable grounds. Fitting a "profile" is unreasonable. I have a right to walk the streets at 3am. I have no problem with the police stopping and asking me what I'm doing. I have no problem telling them who I am and where I live but unless they have a legitimate reason (the investigation of an actual crime for instance) then they have NO right to search my person. PERIOD!

 

Don't people have a right to be protected from violence over and above the right of an individual to the privacy of their personal possessions? Would you object to your suitcase being scanned in the airport? Would you object to a weapon detection system being used by police to monitor public spaces?

 

To answer your first question. NO, they don't. The rights of the INDIVIDUAL are what the Bill of Rights is all about. Each and every individual is protected. And yes I do object to all those things. I don't feel safer because of it. I actually feel disgraced that hundreds of thousands of people died to prevent those types of things from happening in my Country. Things like roadside "safety" checks, in my eyes, are tantamount to Gestapo roadblocks. "Your papers please!" ... Bulls**t! If I have done nothing wrong then leave me the f**k alone!

 

I agree that too much power can be abused by Government, however this is not too much power, in my opinion it is reasonable that a Government agency such as the police have the right to search for weapons especially with the newer technology now being trialled in the Midlands, actually stopping someone need only occur after the weapon has been detected passively rather than the old fashioned trial and error stop and turn out your pockets routine. Or do you believe that police should not even be looking for weapons at all, is it an invasion of some basic "right" and if so which one?

 

Now you're contradicting yourself. Do you believe its OK to stop and search or not? How can a cop on the street "detect" a weapon just by observing someone walking down the street?

[i90807065 0]

Its things like this, and things that will inevitably happen, that make me want to get rid of all the corrupt people in power(not in a physical sense but removing them from whatever office theyre in).

People that dont care what they do to others as long as they profit from it.

People that dont know jack about the bill of rights and abuse all the power thay have

 

"I love my country but I hate the people in charge"

 

I dont want to move, but it almost seems like a good decision. Things here need to change.

 

On that note, im out

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Whats next, walking stick control? re-bar possession laws? Umbrella use limits? Geeze...

 

I'm no expert on the mentalities of Nations but it has occured to me that Europeans and the rest of the so-called old world are used to a LOT of goverment oversight in their daily lives

[...]

when I left California, they had that year alone enacted over a thousand new laws at the start of the year...dangme! Is this really nessassary? Everytime a new law is invoked, another chip in my freedom to decide for myself and think for myself is taken away.

It's more than 12 000 a year in France. Most of them would have been useless if older ones were correctly enforced. Guess from where most other are coming? That's right, EU.

 

So, you got the point: west-Europeans are not only used to a lot of government oversight, but they do want it! Or at least it seems so, as I can't see much hostile reactions against new regulation and State interventionnism. The fact is the EU is an aggravating mean. Those people in that thing just love to regulate, edict and ordain lots of regulations, laws, etc: from the size of potatoes to your absolute non-right to raise your children how you feel. (Their new idea is to forbid punishment on children... Parents will be suppose to have talks with them. So west European! No use of force! Have talks! Sissies...)

 

So, should a problem arise somewhere, a new law will be passed. An older one exists yet? So what? Let's make a new one and don't try to enforce the existing ones.

And the fact that normal people do still respect the laws whereas bad guys don't give a damn about them does not cross their minds. People like me will so wander around without any means of defense whereas those immigrants gangs, burlars or whatever do bear knifes and fire arms. I'm supposed to rely on the Police... the same one that is prosecuted when it uses its own means of defense. The same one that have orders from the State not to act in order not to cause stirs among the problematic population... The same one that when I lived in the hottest quarter of my town (3 years ) I saw only one time! In 3 years...

That's all the european tragedy: the old european-style convenant between peoples and state is no longer accurate: one is supposed to abdicate some of its freedom in exchange of state protections against the bad guys. Nowadays, you are supposed to abdicate almost all your liberties, all, without concrete compensations.

And here comes the knife thing: another attempt by a west european state to controll a situation it has lost controll over years ago. It will be a failure, as only honnest citizens will comply and other won't be prosecuted.

The bigger the State, the less it's efficient.

[+Julhelm 266]

No, the real tragedy of Europe is how they got everyone to buy into this EU s**t and their damned "free market" bulls**t so the government could sell out those state-owned assets like our nuclear reactors which were paid for (and thus rightly, owned) by the taxpayers and designed to provide power at self-cost rate (+/- 0) to private corporations who are now using this infrastructure, whose development they never had to invest in, to pricegouge Joe Average at 200+% rates.

 

And what about the so-called free market and equal-competition rules of the EU? We still have the same old State monopoly (and tax-gouging) on alcohol and medicine, which they import cheaply and then sell to the people for 5 times the actual price; they erect surveillance cameras all over the place, they pass legislation that gives the f***ing military intelligence legal mandate to wiretap ALL electronic communication within the country, and of course all costs related to living just rise and rise, like gas is almost 2£ per LITER, food is 20% more expensive than 6 months ago, and then they have the gall to blame overpopulation in the third world when it's their own f***ing policies of demanding, in exchange for the food and monetary aid given to 3rd world nations, that their farmers produce, not to feed their own people, but to compete on the export market with our own ultra-government-subsidized farmers making certain that said nations can never get off the ground to feed themselves, thus perpetuating the cycle.

 

And we call this grand lie "democracy". f*** that s**t. Democracy means the citizens should have the power, not "vote for us and do as we say".

 

Democracy should not be a way for the elite and all the other motherf***ing suits to leech and rob you and me of everything that's ours and then f*** us over a little more.

 

No, if there was any justice in the world those motherf***ers, and I mean every single last f***ing one of them, should be put against a wall and shot for high treason.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Julhelm

[JediMaster 451]

The problem with the leftist way of looking at crime (applying to W Europe, CA, and other like places) is that they don't want to admit that force is the only thing people who are intent on breaking the rules will respect. Same thing with children. You can't explain things to a 3 yr old. You tell them what to do and they do it or they don't. If they don't, you have only the carrot and the stick. The carrot can lead to them expecting a carrot to do ANYTHING, while fear of the stick can be sufficient.

No one's ever said "we can use the carrot, the stick, or the jumble of words." What are you going to do, talk to Dahmer and convince him he shouldn't be killing and eating people? Talk to the angry teenager with a broken home and no money and convince him that robbing convenience stores or mugging people is just "wrong" and they shouldn't do it?

Ok, well what happens if you tell them and that doesn't work? Tell them again? With a louder voice? Send them to their room/prison? What happens if they refuse to go? Then you have to FORCE them, which may involve beating to get them to submit.

 

The left think man has evolved so far above his animal past that words alone can solve anything, even to the babies that don't have fully developed langauge skills or the criminals that don't care what the left think! The right think man basically hasn't evolved past being an animal at all and everyone needs to be able to defend themselves because it's the survival of the fittest, whether in business or politics or just home protection.

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Ok, well what happens if you tell them and that doesn't work? Tell them again? With a louder voice? Send them to their room/prison? What happens if they refuse to go? Then you have to FORCE them, which may involve beating to get them to submit.

You blame the thing on not enough money spent on talks with those people, not enough prevention.

At least what's happening in France: they are burning schools, cars, bus? Poor little guys are just wanting to talk! Let's give them money and blah blah blah "marshall plan for the subburbs". Hell, billions had been wasted there...

Force them? No way, that's fascist/american/unacceptable methods.

 

Welcome in Europe, where you can go to jail because you wounded the guy that was just pillaging your house (recently happened) and he got nothing. So depressing.