Karl Marx

Currently reading: The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand The New Cold War by Edward Lucas The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner Great Tales of Horror, an H.P. Lovecraft collection

I think it's funny that there are people who think raising the minimum wage will make things "fair". If a business is still in operation after the minimum wage is raised, then that means they can still extract surplus value from their workers. Hardly fair... The minimum wage is nothing more than a concession to the workers designed to preserve the capitalist system by placating those who can only sell their labor for whatever they can get. Raising the minimum wage would certainly hurt small businesses, as well as increase competition for jobs. This would allow large corporations to more easily dominate their competitors and have access to an industrial reserve army of former minimum wage workers whose employers couldn't afford to continue paying them. Nothing but another step toward the collapse of the system... Given these two thoughts, I don't know whether to oppose the minimum wage or support it.

Frankly, I've begun not to care either way. In the United States, patriotism seems to be based on past accomplishments (back-to-back World War champions, first to the moon, last superpower standing). While some of the things people love to continue to bring up are good or prestigious in of themselves, I just don't feel compelled to like the country more. Just because the thing we've done (well, some of them, at least) have been great, the country that is responsible is not necessarily great. For instance, H!tler ended the postwar recession in Germany, a good thing to have done. Does the fact that he did a few great things mean that I should feel obligated to respect or support him? Absolutely not. However, I wouldn't consider myself a multiculturalist, either. "Hey, did you know that whites will be a minority in the U.S. by 2050?" That's neat. Who cares? "We need more diversity in education/the workplace/whatever." Why? Who cares what race their teacher, co worker, or classmate is? "We need to promote a more multicultural/multiethnic society." Again. why? tl;dr nationalism and multiculturalism are flawed

While these are good requirements in of themselves, I would not trust the state to evaluate people along these lines. What if someone wanted a gun for recreational purposes and was denied because the state determined that they didn't truly need one? I don't think our legislators would hesitate to deny Communists the right to bear arms due to trustworthiness. It's also vulnerable to racial profiling. Yeah, so what? Not everyone who feels that way is some melodramatic Tea Partier. Just because the NSA spies on other nations doesn't mean that every American does. Most of us are thoroughly upset about what has happened and are more distrusting of our government than we have been in a while. Your point would only be valid if it were directed at a member of our government. You mean only call the cops? And then just sit there? I know people who would be dead if they had done that.

Ever heard of the AEA (Alabama Education Association)?

You may not know what he's referring to a specific incident. I didn't when I first read it. Pretty bad idea, by the way.

Yeah, that's why there's no real reason for someone living in Tornado Alley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Alley) to prepare for a tornado. There's also no need to practice earthquake safety in Japan, or to by an umbrella in the UK. Somehow, you managed to make a post with less substance than the one you were replying to. First, you seem to have said that a gun's only purpose is to kill. But now, you're only saying that killing is its primary purpose. I'm going to assume this is a mistake, and that you're not holding two contradictory opinions. For the sake of future arguments, which assertion should we be trying to disprove? "Heh heh, good one" is how I might respond to that if I was twelve. But who knows, maybe I'm just retarded as well. Obviously everyone who disagrees with you is.

What if we made the licenses free? I agree that money shouldn't factor into self defense (although I usually take it further and include education, housing, etc.). I don't selectively use terminology like "assault weapon" (when you think about it, aren't all weapons designed for some kind of assault?) in an attempt to have certain guns banned. Yet, because I support licensing, you assume that I do use terminology in such a manner. Not everyone who advocates such policies is your typical American liberal. Gun licensing and no-gun-zones aren't the best things to compare, but I can see how this is an easy mistake to make. I personally do not support licensing because I've been duped into thinking that the state can keep guns out of the hands of those who want them. It is because those who choose to own a firearm should know how to safely use, store, and maintain it. Think of gun licensing as being like a lock. Honest folks see a lock and know not to tamper with it. Malicious people are going to find a way around a lock, some fairly easily. Honest folks will gain valuable knowledge in the process of obtaining their license. Malicious people are going to find a way to get their guns, as well.

Nation Name: Bestandigkeit Nation Link: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=1094

The only difference in this area is that physical struggle is permitted in Islam, but forbidden in Christianity. This means that Jihadists could use their religion to justify their actions, whereas the Crusaders could not.

I would just like to point out that crusading is not a part of Christianity. In fact, verses like these seem to hold that no form of violence is acceptable, regardless of circumstance ("do not resist an evil person"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism This would mean that the crusades had no basis in faith. However, to quote the article you submitted: As such, I would contend that there is a fundamental difference between ideal Christian and Muslim behaviour. Don't get me wrong, though. The violence going down right now is because of western imperialism and lack of respect for national sovereignty.

What about books about science, history, or philosophy that could be considered beyond the reading level of a young child? Should they be kept from reading those as well? I didn't have much trouble understanding concepts like these, even at a young age. This is thanks to church and my relatives, who were instrumental in my understanding. If I had a question, it would have been absurd to say something like "This is too advanced for you, give me that Bible.". Instead, they helped me. Call me crazy, but I don't want to live in a society where we restrict access to ideas based on age.

>no freedom >brutal punishment >free trade enforced 0/10

Other than "muh indoctrination", why?

Much of the tension and violence in the Middle East is a response to Western interference. The longer we stay there, the more people we radicalize into terrorists. If military action is required, let it be that of the nations where the terrorists are. The cost of training and equipping these armies would be more than offset by the money we save by getting out of the region. We could even give people an alternative to joining up with the radicals. Send foreign aid, develop their economies, and significantly raise the standard of living. "Why would I go off to fight and die when I could live comfortably at home?"

What I've never understood is why teachers in this situation care what a child is reading. What's the worst thing that could happen if some kid reads the Bible? The only things she has accomplished is restriction of information. What an excellent educator...

http://slackhalla.org/~demise/test/socialattitude.php

I don't really have one. The communist parties we have today are too anti-religion for me (I don't agree with Marx that religion is alienation) and have stances on abortion that I find objectionable. A lot of them seem obsessed with hating on white people, especially males. If you wanted to associate me with a certain ideology, it would (except for religious principles) be Marxism.

My thoughts exactly.

The legitimacy of the Constitution is compromised by its age. Obviously, that means things like free speech, the need of a warrant in order to conduct a search, trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment aren't necessarily good things. The free market is a bad thing (actually true in my opinion, but for different reasons) because The Wealth of Nations was written so long ago. The same goes for all mainstream religious texts. Because that is the logic you are outlying here. As for where you are going with the thing about gun zones... Are you going to propose we get rid of no-gun zones? It's no secret that they fail to prevent crime. I wasn't trying to say we're better because we have less violence. The point is that they have more murders and fewer guns, meaning there are factors beyond gun regulation or lack thereof that significantly contribute to violence. This means that more regulation (not to say that I do not support additional regulation, remember my support of licenses) is not guaranteed to decrease violence.

Mecca

Granted. It doesn't work. I wish most public places (restaurants, stores, etc.) weren't so cold.

This is a valid comparison. The United States has a much higher gun ownership rate than those countries, while also having a much lower murder rate. More guns =/= more murders. The part about the United Kingdom shows that, despite the fact that they've banned handguns, they have more violent crime. More guns =/= more violent crime. Both of these points suggest that limiting/banning guns (except for automatics, no one needs those) will not reduce crime. If it isn't gun ownership, then the cause of gun murders is the same as that of fatal stabbings and beatings. In the case of mass shootings, the underlying issue is always mental health, an issue that the U.S. handles very, very poorly. Does that mean there shouldn't be licenses for cars? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know what you think about licenses and why. I have a concealed-carry permit. If no one knows that I have a gun, no one gets scared or upset. If I were to open-carry though, children, people afraid of guns, or easily-agitated gun control advocates could get upset. Concealed-carry just seems more polite to me. And no, I've never been anxious that someone might be concealing a gun. In fact, knowing that (besides myself) there may be other people with the capability to prevent a violent crime puts me at ease.

Granted, but it's poisoned. I wish I could survive without sleep.

Angola