The words of a poet
Inspire us all
My friend has a gift
And has answered a call
His words bring to some
A smile on their face
To others their hearts
Feel the touch of true grace
His words make the mind
Flirt with the past
Give life to the present
And a future re-cast
Float to the surface
The memories of old
Thoughts much more precious
Than diamonds or gold
The words of this poet
Take flight from his heart
And rest in our souls
From which they will not part
He would not acknowledge
The depth of his words
But lives they can change
Thus so change the world
What lies in his heart
The joy and the pain
Takes flight off his tongue
Our hearts to gain
Rhymes I have written
Desperate and searching
Poems he has given
to hearts that are hurting
An old friend named Scott
John Pope August 11th, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Socialism vs. Capitalism and one other point of discussion
I recently read a debate on facebook about Socialism and have thought about it off and on since then so I thought I would give my opinion on the topic here on my blog
Where to start?
Let me start by posting the original comment that started the debate:
I just want to say, at the risk of pissing off the majority of my Friend's list: Socialism works. If you think that what we have going on here in the US is working, good for you, but I don't. I've lived in a socialist society and I can tell you, it was nice having healthcare that didn't bleed everyone dry, roads without potholes, very little crime, hardly any homeless AND the ability to have a 30-45 day vacation once a year without the threat of losing a job or going broke. The end.
Some comments from the original author of the post:
Did you know that in Europe, had we stayed there, my children would have had careers by the time they graduated high school? Careers, not just jobs, but actual careers. They would have been ready for university by the time they hit their 18th birthday and would have already been studying and working in their career field.
I do however, after experiencing life in countries that have a Socialist aspect or way of being, believe that we could learn a great deal from those countries that have succeeded in taking care of their citizens. Immediately, people hear Socialism and think OMG! I'm not going to foot the bill for anyone else...I work hard for my money. Sorry, not picking on you, just stating what I've experienced in general...
The thing is...in living in Europe, my kids being in school there, having a child there, etc, I've experienced a great deal of what a 'socialist' society has to offer. I know, and I'm sure we all do, that Socialism isn't fully alive and well in the world, but the ideas are there, and some of these ideas have been successfully implemented into the daily lives of many citizens of these countries...
my point being...my experience has been: healthcare that I didn't have to worry about (yes, I actually got to go to the doctor and didn't have endless co-pays, referrals, or monthly premiums. My kids had the opportunity (and I kick myself everyday that I see them struggle with their future here) to become anything they wanted to become and study for that from a young age...we were able to vacation as a family, have family come over (you witnessed this first hand, Jadee) and take them to other countries without much worry about finances or losing jobs when we returned. That's just to name a small fraction of some of the benefits of at least entertaining something other than what we've got going on here.
Here I work barely above minimum wage, my Son has to work in fast food, we have to HOPE that we can get financial aid for college (not something to worry about there), taking a vacation here is unheard of...and healthcare eats away at what is left of the money that is brought home in nearly every household in this country, because Heaven help any of us if we were to get sick or have an emergency.
I just don't see how anyone can defend the current or even the past 20 years of what this country has had to offer it's citizens and still have the breath to say that they're proud of where we stand. So far, from how it appears, we stand only for ourselves. You can even read it here on Facebook...in the posts where people list what the President makes, Congress, etc, in comparison to what our troops make. If that isn't something to wake this country to it's core, I really don't know what would.
The argument against socialism:
People are missing a huge historical fact, America was once the richest country in the world. At that time there was NO government socialsim, pure capitalism, the health care etc. started to take a dump when we started to get socialsim. many Dr.s are now quiting the proffession because they can not recoup the money spent on callage. I have met more people on welfare who do not need it than do. I know people who make way more money than me who take all kinds of gov programs.
we have forgoten what the word "need" means. I qualify for all kinds of gov programs but I do not take them because I do not need them. and I like to be able to sleep at night. It is no one elses responsability to feed my family or give them health care but mine. And if you all take a look at the States with the most socialist programs, CALI, you will see they are the ones who are the closest to going bankrupt. Well fare is slavery, thats why the left support it so much, they will get the votes of every one on it. Bill Gates did not make his money off gov programs, he worked his ass off, the more America pushes towards socialsim the less chance of us living the American dream.
one last note from a PERSONAL expereance, I do not have a job to come home to because of the FED GOV and the CAL GOV taxing the shit out of my boss so he had to down size or starve. if that is socialsim, and it is, you can have it, But I will fight it, yes even with my guns, (which is why the left wants to take them away) Though I love so many of you, America was not founded on socialist ideas, don't try to change it, there are many other countries you are free to move to. I put on my uniform and put my life on the line for what this country has stood for.
Original Author:
in that argument, I can also say that at that time women didn't work, then men usually did, and the women stayed home in the kitchen and pregnant. The 'Socialism' that you're referring to, in no where near in comparison to what the European countries and Canada have implemented and have PROVEN that work. Why it is that people in this country seem to think that 'Socialism' doesn't 'work' because of the lazy are obviously not looking at any place other than the US for inspiration. I think the US is arrogant enough to believe that 'well, we aren't Europe'...got that right, they know what they're doing and we still have no healthcare, the elderly are suffering and we have an incredible homeless problem...and that's just to name a FEW of our issues.
Keep in mind that the debate went on from here but for this blog I will stop it here and try to hit on some of the points that were made later on in the debate.
Let me go ahead and start again by giving you the definition of the "socialism"
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
I want to explain further that the socialist structure in place in certain countries in Europe is not the socialist structure most Americans think of when they think of socialism. It is not in anyway tyrannical, in fact it is closer to our government structure here in the U.S. than any other government structure I can think of.
However, it is not a government structure in my opinion but an economic structure for the sake of this argument at any rate.
Here in the United States our economic structure is one of capitalism
So let's keep a clear picture of what this debate is really about, Economics .... Capitalism vs. Socialism
Definition of Capitalism:
cap·i·tal·ism [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Basically with this modern socialist structure in place in Europe we have the distribution of wealth being governed by ministries who's job it is to spread out the wealth earned within the economy for the betterment of the population.
With capitalism, the wealth within the economy is privately owned and distributed.
However, that is not to say that in the U.S. there is no socialism.
Our economic structure started out as pure capitalism and it worked well for a time but like every other economic structure and government structure in history it has changed over the years. If you believe that we in America started out as purely capitalist in economy I believe in the strictest sense of the definition that I would agree. However due to our political and governmental structure which is tied into our economy this is no longer the case. A good example of the U.S.'s socialism is seen in our educational system, where the wealth of the economy has been distributed among our children for the betterment of the population, another is our social security programs, another more recent example (though it may not be the best example) is our new move towards social health care.
Now obviously, our attempt at socialism within the U.S. pales in comparison to that of modern day Europe, where education, medical, retirement needs, career options, virtually all aspects of the needs of the people are integrated into the system and have been for quite some time.
The real question of the debate is wether the socialist economy works better than the capitalist economy, Europe vs. U.S.
The point of the original author (I believe) is that for the population as a whole, the socialist structure in these countries in Europe is working better than the capitalist structure in place in the U.S.
I don't really think you can argue the fact. She is right! When you consider the entire population of each country as a whole! If there is less unemployment, less homelessness, healthcare available for everyone, opportunity for higher education for anyone who wants it, job security, etc etc.
That said, lets move on to the implementation of socialism into our country.
This is a movement that has gained a lot of ground in recent years and will most likely continue to do so. The socialist democrats of our country are leading the charge to move into a socialist structure. They have succeeded up to this point because they are doing it gradually and they know as do I, that to try and change our structure rapidly will not work. Why not? Simply because Americans will not let it happen. Our current generation still believes that our forefathers set in stone the guidelines for a country of free individuals who could make their own choices without governmental interference, and that socialism infringes on that right. This is more important to the majority of Americans than social welfare.
Now let me give my opinion on the topic.
I must agree that the current structure in place in Europe is working better than our current structure here in the U.S. but let me clarify that I do not believe it has in our past nor that it will in their future.
Here is why:
1. Both economies, socialist and capitalist rely on growth to sustain them in the long run
2. When growth is no longer possible (which obviously, it has to climax at some point) both economies must rely on destruction
1st point-The U.S. economy has succeeded for several reasons, first of all we are a relatively new country which started out with vast resources, a small population, room to grow and an independent individual attitude (born of a flight from tyranny) which eventually worked together for the betterment of the nation.
The European countries' economy is succeeding because it's economy is new and by "new" I mean only a few decades old. So it also has had room to grow. Also the vast majority of the people had an overwhelming attitude towards change after world war II
But what happens to both economies when room for growth runs out? I believe that we in the U.S. are on the downhill run of our growth and that the European nations because of their size, population and resources at the start had comparably little room for growth to start with. Also, what happens when the population of the elderly outgrows the generated income of the workforce? Which by the way is about to happen in both economic structures. What eventually happens is collapse of the structure, in order to take care of the larger elderly population the smaller population of the workforce must pay more out of their wages leaving less for them to live on and less to distribute towards education which in turn makes the future population ill-equipped to compete technologically in the workplace.
2nd point- When growth is no longer possible both economies must rely on destruction
Now this is a hard line to take but I think one that history will prove me out on.
Since the European structure hasn't been around long enough to use it as an example I will use the U.S. economic structure though I believe both must eventually rely on destruction
Why has the U.S. economy lasted so long and succeeded where others have failed?
Neither economy can succeed after it has reached it's maximum growth however our growth in the U.S. has never reached that climactic point because of destruction, namely war. Which depletes the population but spurs the economy and also changes the attitude of the people. War was also the main reason that this new socialist structure in Europe had the start that it did. After world war II most of the European countries were decimated as far as their economies, population, industrial structures and so on giving them a very good chance at a socialist start.
In summary. I believe that yes socialism in Europe currently works better than capitalism with socialist entitlements in the U.S.
I do not believe it will last however and therefore see no reason to move towards a socialist economy. More over I don't believe it will work in a capitalist climate.
Personally, I am a capitalist. Why? Because I believe in the "idea" that if I work hard I can use my income to generate a better life for me and my family and those that I care about, without interference from a group of people that think they know what is best for everyone. I will grant you that the afore-mentioned exists within the capitalist structure but not to the degree it does in a socialist structure. I have a hard time with the idea that my wealth (minuscule though it may be) will be taken from me and distributed among others who have not worked as hard as I have or in some cases not worked at all. Again, yes that very thing does occur here and I fight against every chance I get.
I do not believe myself to be greedy in that respect. I simply believe that it is my right as a free citizen of the United States to spend my own money the way I want to. If I hoard my money and do not help others then that is my right. I do not believe it to be morally right but it is still my money and no one else has the right to tell me how to use it.
I guess the main reason is that I do not hold with the socialist outlook is that I do not like control over my life in any shape or form, granted there is plenty of it in this country and especially in my workplace and that is most likely why I don't want any more of it.
Does that make me a hard man, selfish, inconsiderate of the less fortunate? Perhaps it does however, for those who know me I believe they would not agree.
I do not believe that anyone else has the right to control my choices as long as I do not purposefully cause injury to anyone else. Now some would say that if I choose to withhold my wealth when there are others in need that I cause injury to those who are in need. I disagree. The very idea that we are a village is foreign to me, I am not responsible for everyone. I am responsible (personal belief here) for myself and my family only. If I choose to help others then that makes me a better man but that is my choice. Not someone else's to make.
I realize that I am going to go off the subject here but it was brought up in the original debate so I will address it here also, dealing with the Constitution
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (1791)
I believe the debate's author interprets as many have before this, to mean that it guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms within the confines of a well-regulated Militia and since we no longer need a regulated militia the point is null and void.
I interpret it as follows: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Both interpretations have no bearing on today however, in that regardless of the original meaning, for over 200 years American citizens have had the right to keep and bear arms on an individual basis, to argue the meaning of over a 200 year old text when we have the history of over 200 years of being allowed to keep our guns. it is obvious that the intention of our people was for individuals to have the right to bear arms because simply, we have kept them for so long. Also, this has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court as recently as 2008, they said that the II Amendment intended for individuals to keep and bear arms.
Now let me stop here and make a relevant point:
In debates, no matter what side of the debate you or I are on, we are both bias. We are bias due to our personalities and due to our life's experiences and in some cases due to our upbringing. Let me be clear here... I am bias in this debate because I am a gun owner, a hunter and a shootist and also have on more than one occasion relied on a firearm for the protection of myself or my family.
On the other side of the debate others may be bias because they do not like guns, because they fear what guns are capable of doing in the hands of a criminal or a bad experience with a gun or for other reasons.
At the time of the amendment our country had no coordinated military in service to speak of thus in order to defend themselves and our country, the people kept and carried their own guns. It was indeed necessary in both respects.
As time passed however the need for a militia to defend our country against invaders grew to be non-existent because of our armed forces (God Bless them all). I do believe though the fact that our country was populated with gun toting individuals was a strong deterrent against invasion in the preceding and the following years. The need for individual gun ownership did not evaporate however in that guns were and are still used for self defense. I can testify to this need for self defense from personal experience
One side of the debate uses the amendment to prove that we no longer have the need for guns in defense and they are a danger to society so they should be abolished or at the very least strictly controlled
The other side says the amendment gives us as individuals the right to own and carry guns
As far as the II Amendment goes I will make this point, at least one of the reasons to keep and bear arms is for the most part gone. We no longer need to purchase firearms individually to defend this country, though I believe that the fact we do own guns individually is a strong deterrent against the movement of foreign soldiers onto our soil and to a lesser degree a deterrent to terrorist attacks.
And now my reasoning personally for the right to bear arms. Simple really. You don't have the right to take them away from me.
What makes others believe they have the right to control how I spend my money and what I own?
Individual freedoms should not be infringed because of the actions of criminals, the criminal's freedoms should be the ones infringed. Not mine!
This idea that others have the right to control me and what I do does not sit well with me at all. If I have not purposefully caused harm to society then I am no criminal and I am entitled to my freedoms.
Now I can argue gun safety vs. gun control all day long but the simple truth remains that no one has the right to take my guns from me. I am as free an individual as anyone else, just because others do not like that I have a gun doesn't mean they have the right to take it from me.
These are my thoughts on the subject and as always, I welcome yours!
Where to start?
Let me start by posting the original comment that started the debate:
I just want to say, at the risk of pissing off the majority of my Friend's list: Socialism works. If you think that what we have going on here in the US is working, good for you, but I don't. I've lived in a socialist society and I can tell you, it was nice having healthcare that didn't bleed everyone dry, roads without potholes, very little crime, hardly any homeless AND the ability to have a 30-45 day vacation once a year without the threat of losing a job or going broke. The end.
Some comments from the original author of the post:
Did you know that in Europe, had we stayed there, my children would have had careers by the time they graduated high school? Careers, not just jobs, but actual careers. They would have been ready for university by the time they hit their 18th birthday and would have already been studying and working in their career field.
I do however, after experiencing life in countries that have a Socialist aspect or way of being, believe that we could learn a great deal from those countries that have succeeded in taking care of their citizens. Immediately, people hear Socialism and think OMG! I'm not going to foot the bill for anyone else...I work hard for my money. Sorry, not picking on you, just stating what I've experienced in general...
The thing is...in living in Europe, my kids being in school there, having a child there, etc, I've experienced a great deal of what a 'socialist' society has to offer. I know, and I'm sure we all do, that Socialism isn't fully alive and well in the world, but the ideas are there, and some of these ideas have been successfully implemented into the daily lives of many citizens of these countries...
my point being...my experience has been: healthcare that I didn't have to worry about (yes, I actually got to go to the doctor and didn't have endless co-pays, referrals, or monthly premiums. My kids had the opportunity (and I kick myself everyday that I see them struggle with their future here) to become anything they wanted to become and study for that from a young age...we were able to vacation as a family, have family come over (you witnessed this first hand, Jadee) and take them to other countries without much worry about finances or losing jobs when we returned. That's just to name a small fraction of some of the benefits of at least entertaining something other than what we've got going on here.
Here I work barely above minimum wage, my Son has to work in fast food, we have to HOPE that we can get financial aid for college (not something to worry about there), taking a vacation here is unheard of...and healthcare eats away at what is left of the money that is brought home in nearly every household in this country, because Heaven help any of us if we were to get sick or have an emergency.
I just don't see how anyone can defend the current or even the past 20 years of what this country has had to offer it's citizens and still have the breath to say that they're proud of where we stand. So far, from how it appears, we stand only for ourselves. You can even read it here on Facebook...in the posts where people list what the President makes, Congress, etc, in comparison to what our troops make. If that isn't something to wake this country to it's core, I really don't know what would.
The argument against socialism:
People are missing a huge historical fact, America was once the richest country in the world. At that time there was NO government socialsim, pure capitalism, the health care etc. started to take a dump when we started to get socialsim. many Dr.s are now quiting the proffession because they can not recoup the money spent on callage. I have met more people on welfare who do not need it than do. I know people who make way more money than me who take all kinds of gov programs.
we have forgoten what the word "need" means. I qualify for all kinds of gov programs but I do not take them because I do not need them. and I like to be able to sleep at night. It is no one elses responsability to feed my family or give them health care but mine. And if you all take a look at the States with the most socialist programs, CALI, you will see they are the ones who are the closest to going bankrupt. Well fare is slavery, thats why the left support it so much, they will get the votes of every one on it. Bill Gates did not make his money off gov programs, he worked his ass off, the more America pushes towards socialsim the less chance of us living the American dream.
one last note from a PERSONAL expereance, I do not have a job to come home to because of the FED GOV and the CAL GOV taxing the shit out of my boss so he had to down size or starve. if that is socialsim, and it is, you can have it, But I will fight it, yes even with my guns, (which is why the left wants to take them away) Though I love so many of you, America was not founded on socialist ideas, don't try to change it, there are many other countries you are free to move to. I put on my uniform and put my life on the line for what this country has stood for.
Original Author:
in that argument, I can also say that at that time women didn't work, then men usually did, and the women stayed home in the kitchen and pregnant. The 'Socialism' that you're referring to, in no where near in comparison to what the European countries and Canada have implemented and have PROVEN that work. Why it is that people in this country seem to think that 'Socialism' doesn't 'work' because of the lazy are obviously not looking at any place other than the US for inspiration. I think the US is arrogant enough to believe that 'well, we aren't Europe'...got that right, they know what they're doing and we still have no healthcare, the elderly are suffering and we have an incredible homeless problem...and that's just to name a FEW of our issues.
Keep in mind that the debate went on from here but for this blog I will stop it here and try to hit on some of the points that were made later on in the debate.
Let me go ahead and start again by giving you the definition of the "socialism"
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
I want to explain further that the socialist structure in place in certain countries in Europe is not the socialist structure most Americans think of when they think of socialism. It is not in anyway tyrannical, in fact it is closer to our government structure here in the U.S. than any other government structure I can think of.
However, it is not a government structure in my opinion but an economic structure for the sake of this argument at any rate.
Here in the United States our economic structure is one of capitalism
So let's keep a clear picture of what this debate is really about, Economics .... Capitalism vs. Socialism
Definition of Capitalism:
cap·i·tal·ism [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Basically with this modern socialist structure in place in Europe we have the distribution of wealth being governed by ministries who's job it is to spread out the wealth earned within the economy for the betterment of the population.
With capitalism, the wealth within the economy is privately owned and distributed.
However, that is not to say that in the U.S. there is no socialism.
Our economic structure started out as pure capitalism and it worked well for a time but like every other economic structure and government structure in history it has changed over the years. If you believe that we in America started out as purely capitalist in economy I believe in the strictest sense of the definition that I would agree. However due to our political and governmental structure which is tied into our economy this is no longer the case. A good example of the U.S.'s socialism is seen in our educational system, where the wealth of the economy has been distributed among our children for the betterment of the population, another is our social security programs, another more recent example (though it may not be the best example) is our new move towards social health care.
Now obviously, our attempt at socialism within the U.S. pales in comparison to that of modern day Europe, where education, medical, retirement needs, career options, virtually all aspects of the needs of the people are integrated into the system and have been for quite some time.
The real question of the debate is wether the socialist economy works better than the capitalist economy, Europe vs. U.S.
The point of the original author (I believe) is that for the population as a whole, the socialist structure in these countries in Europe is working better than the capitalist structure in place in the U.S.
I don't really think you can argue the fact. She is right! When you consider the entire population of each country as a whole! If there is less unemployment, less homelessness, healthcare available for everyone, opportunity for higher education for anyone who wants it, job security, etc etc.
That said, lets move on to the implementation of socialism into our country.
This is a movement that has gained a lot of ground in recent years and will most likely continue to do so. The socialist democrats of our country are leading the charge to move into a socialist structure. They have succeeded up to this point because they are doing it gradually and they know as do I, that to try and change our structure rapidly will not work. Why not? Simply because Americans will not let it happen. Our current generation still believes that our forefathers set in stone the guidelines for a country of free individuals who could make their own choices without governmental interference, and that socialism infringes on that right. This is more important to the majority of Americans than social welfare.
Now let me give my opinion on the topic.
I must agree that the current structure in place in Europe is working better than our current structure here in the U.S. but let me clarify that I do not believe it has in our past nor that it will in their future.
Here is why:
1. Both economies, socialist and capitalist rely on growth to sustain them in the long run
2. When growth is no longer possible (which obviously, it has to climax at some point) both economies must rely on destruction
1st point-The U.S. economy has succeeded for several reasons, first of all we are a relatively new country which started out with vast resources, a small population, room to grow and an independent individual attitude (born of a flight from tyranny) which eventually worked together for the betterment of the nation.
The European countries' economy is succeeding because it's economy is new and by "new" I mean only a few decades old. So it also has had room to grow. Also the vast majority of the people had an overwhelming attitude towards change after world war II
But what happens to both economies when room for growth runs out? I believe that we in the U.S. are on the downhill run of our growth and that the European nations because of their size, population and resources at the start had comparably little room for growth to start with. Also, what happens when the population of the elderly outgrows the generated income of the workforce? Which by the way is about to happen in both economic structures. What eventually happens is collapse of the structure, in order to take care of the larger elderly population the smaller population of the workforce must pay more out of their wages leaving less for them to live on and less to distribute towards education which in turn makes the future population ill-equipped to compete technologically in the workplace.
2nd point- When growth is no longer possible both economies must rely on destruction
Now this is a hard line to take but I think one that history will prove me out on.
Since the European structure hasn't been around long enough to use it as an example I will use the U.S. economic structure though I believe both must eventually rely on destruction
Why has the U.S. economy lasted so long and succeeded where others have failed?
Neither economy can succeed after it has reached it's maximum growth however our growth in the U.S. has never reached that climactic point because of destruction, namely war. Which depletes the population but spurs the economy and also changes the attitude of the people. War was also the main reason that this new socialist structure in Europe had the start that it did. After world war II most of the European countries were decimated as far as their economies, population, industrial structures and so on giving them a very good chance at a socialist start.
In summary. I believe that yes socialism in Europe currently works better than capitalism with socialist entitlements in the U.S.
I do not believe it will last however and therefore see no reason to move towards a socialist economy. More over I don't believe it will work in a capitalist climate.
Personally, I am a capitalist. Why? Because I believe in the "idea" that if I work hard I can use my income to generate a better life for me and my family and those that I care about, without interference from a group of people that think they know what is best for everyone. I will grant you that the afore-mentioned exists within the capitalist structure but not to the degree it does in a socialist structure. I have a hard time with the idea that my wealth (minuscule though it may be) will be taken from me and distributed among others who have not worked as hard as I have or in some cases not worked at all. Again, yes that very thing does occur here and I fight against every chance I get.
I do not believe myself to be greedy in that respect. I simply believe that it is my right as a free citizen of the United States to spend my own money the way I want to. If I hoard my money and do not help others then that is my right. I do not believe it to be morally right but it is still my money and no one else has the right to tell me how to use it.
I guess the main reason is that I do not hold with the socialist outlook is that I do not like control over my life in any shape or form, granted there is plenty of it in this country and especially in my workplace and that is most likely why I don't want any more of it.
Does that make me a hard man, selfish, inconsiderate of the less fortunate? Perhaps it does however, for those who know me I believe they would not agree.
I do not believe that anyone else has the right to control my choices as long as I do not purposefully cause injury to anyone else. Now some would say that if I choose to withhold my wealth when there are others in need that I cause injury to those who are in need. I disagree. The very idea that we are a village is foreign to me, I am not responsible for everyone. I am responsible (personal belief here) for myself and my family only. If I choose to help others then that makes me a better man but that is my choice. Not someone else's to make.
I realize that I am going to go off the subject here but it was brought up in the original debate so I will address it here also, dealing with the Constitution
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (1791)
I believe the debate's author interprets as many have before this, to mean that it guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms within the confines of a well-regulated Militia and since we no longer need a regulated militia the point is null and void.
I interpret it as follows: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Both interpretations have no bearing on today however, in that regardless of the original meaning, for over 200 years American citizens have had the right to keep and bear arms on an individual basis, to argue the meaning of over a 200 year old text when we have the history of over 200 years of being allowed to keep our guns. it is obvious that the intention of our people was for individuals to have the right to bear arms because simply, we have kept them for so long. Also, this has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court as recently as 2008, they said that the II Amendment intended for individuals to keep and bear arms.
Now let me stop here and make a relevant point:
In debates, no matter what side of the debate you or I are on, we are both bias. We are bias due to our personalities and due to our life's experiences and in some cases due to our upbringing. Let me be clear here... I am bias in this debate because I am a gun owner, a hunter and a shootist and also have on more than one occasion relied on a firearm for the protection of myself or my family.
On the other side of the debate others may be bias because they do not like guns, because they fear what guns are capable of doing in the hands of a criminal or a bad experience with a gun or for other reasons.
At the time of the amendment our country had no coordinated military in service to speak of thus in order to defend themselves and our country, the people kept and carried their own guns. It was indeed necessary in both respects.
As time passed however the need for a militia to defend our country against invaders grew to be non-existent because of our armed forces (God Bless them all). I do believe though the fact that our country was populated with gun toting individuals was a strong deterrent against invasion in the preceding and the following years. The need for individual gun ownership did not evaporate however in that guns were and are still used for self defense. I can testify to this need for self defense from personal experience
One side of the debate uses the amendment to prove that we no longer have the need for guns in defense and they are a danger to society so they should be abolished or at the very least strictly controlled
The other side says the amendment gives us as individuals the right to own and carry guns
As far as the II Amendment goes I will make this point, at least one of the reasons to keep and bear arms is for the most part gone. We no longer need to purchase firearms individually to defend this country, though I believe that the fact we do own guns individually is a strong deterrent against the movement of foreign soldiers onto our soil and to a lesser degree a deterrent to terrorist attacks.
And now my reasoning personally for the right to bear arms. Simple really. You don't have the right to take them away from me.
What makes others believe they have the right to control how I spend my money and what I own?
Individual freedoms should not be infringed because of the actions of criminals, the criminal's freedoms should be the ones infringed. Not mine!
This idea that others have the right to control me and what I do does not sit well with me at all. If I have not purposefully caused harm to society then I am no criminal and I am entitled to my freedoms.
Now I can argue gun safety vs. gun control all day long but the simple truth remains that no one has the right to take my guns from me. I am as free an individual as anyone else, just because others do not like that I have a gun doesn't mean they have the right to take it from me.
These are my thoughts on the subject and as always, I welcome yours!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
