I can’t think of a better way to defend myself from multiple intruders, or one man who is bigger, or stronger, or more dusted than I am. And, since men are typically bigger and stronger than women, I think arming women is the most effective deterrent to rape.

I don’t have a visceral hatred of guvmints…

Neither do I. I have a pronounced distrust of government. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Miami, and WWII-era Southern California are just four good reasons why my distrust is justified.

Australia did the unthinkable – the people were debarred from owning firearms unless they have a pro-active reason in 1997.

Gee, Mister Magistrate! I have this uneasy feeling about that Ted Bundy guy up the street. See, I think he’s going to kill some girls in Utah, Colorado, and Florida, and I’d rather my daughter not be one of his victims. No, I don’t know that he’s done anything wrong, but she needs this proactive reason to own a gun, and I think the guy just might be a sociopath. Y’see what I’m saying, Judge?

And Khrushchev could not explain Communism to his son. My country’s single political party, 90% of which was functionally illiterate, proudly trotted out ideologically pure simpletons to lead the state – always in the wrong direction. And by “ideologically pure” I mean free of any ideology other than “theft is righteous”. Not an ideology so different from the leadership in America today, unfortunately.

Shoud that read “self is reason enough to own illegal firearms” Crusader?

Yak, yak, yak, brotio! I s’pose you can’t figure out how to defend yourself unless you have a gun. Besides I don’t have a visceral hatred of guvmints – you do. You may get a rush by the thought of owning an illegal weapon and be willing to go jail – but I don’t.

Gil believes himself to be property of the Australian government. Gil has no need for self-defense, and furthermore, believes self-defense to be arrogant. If the government wants him to live, they will defend him. If he dies, then it’s because he wasn’t useful enough for the government to bother with, and he’s OK with that, too.

In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low.

Muirdiot would have us believe that Americans have never had to ability to climb the social & economic ladders. Can he provide evidence?

In a market setting, if you enter the supermarket and see Cheerios and Wheaties on the shelf, you can choose Wheaties, go through the check stand, and immediately go home with what you want without consulting with anyone else.

In a political setting, if you enter the supermarket and see Cheerios and Wheaties on the shelf, if your preference is Wheaties, you can cast your single vote for Wheaties, but then you have to go home and wait the election returns and hope a majority of other voters also "chose" Wheaties in order to get what you want.

I found most baby boomers had no concept of the word consideration, they didn't know the word and didn't know the meaning. And, frankly the actions of that generation as they went through the 60s demonstrates pretty much that didn't and wouldn't have given a crap if they did know and understand the word.

The very difference in the word want that Don points out above.

The difference between want and need for another example. (Took me a long time to convince my wife to not say need when she meant want.)

The difference between the word "miss" and the words "did not see or will not see". i.e., we will not "miss" the show, we just will "not see the show."

Try to tell a youngster today that when a person talks, he doesn't "go", he says or said. You can just confuse the hell out of most youngster today by asking them, "And, then what did he goad after you axed him?"

All-in-all though the ignorant so vastly outnumbered the knowing even back then, that one just comes across as a scold if one tries to educate everyone that misspeaks, so now I just have fun with it.

I had a lady attorney the other day say in the period before we began the deposition that she had been looking at a competitor's website advertising, "and, they guaranteed results!", she said, "I wonder if the state bar has seen that ad?"

I pointed out to her (this is very unpolitic for a videographer to educate an attorney, but what the hell I am old enough not to give a crap.) that it was a perfectly good ad. I said to her, "If you and I went on a date for dinner and after, I can guarantee results. You might slap my face, laugh, and or experience some pleasurable time….but no matter what, we would have results."

She looked at me blank for a moment while she assimilated this, and then said, "Good point."

A blow struck for clarity.

Mostly though people have just missed so much education and have been missing it for decades. And, having that lack of clarity in many cases costs them a lot in wasted time and money.

The article is good and highlights the limitations of the democratic process. But it's also worth considering why Don's mind wanders to Lexuses as something that we make a constrained "I want" statement about, and subways as something that we make an unconstrained "I want" statement about. Same with Bill's example. It's a great example and illustrates the point beautifully. But why is it that we've never had to vote on the provision of breakfast cereal? The point about democracy is dead-on, and it naturally raises the questions "well then why do we use democracy instead of the market for certain products and not others". Doesn't make democracy any more efficient – but in the words of an earlier Don post today – "always axe – 'compared to what'" [yes, that was another shout out to you vidyohs!]

Democracy provides the illusion that government can be had with little personal cost, and redistribution fools people into thinking that someone else will be made to pay the cost.

The cost of government is always borne by those that labor to produce value.

why do we use democracy instead of the market for certain products and not others?

Democracy is the tool of the majority to force others to do what they don't want (constrained) to do because the majority wants (unconstrained) them to do it.

That's why democracy sucks big-time. A constitutionally limited government is much better. I hope we get one again.

http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/2-2/2-2-6.htm

But Adams was not unrealistic about the extent of human equality. While maintaining that people are ‘equal and alike’ at birth, he also recognized the impossibility of a uniform distribution of aptitudes and wealth, glory and honors in a great country. ‘Was there, or will there ever be a nation whose individuals were all equals in natural and acquired qualities, in virtues, talents, and riches?’ he wonders, before concluding, ‘the answer in all mankind must be in the negative.’

The government of the United States would have to respect the principle of equality at birth while recognizing the tendency of people to diverge in attributes and accomplishments.