So if you've read my diaries and comments, you know that I have some Ron Paul friends. (I know, I know.) Well, one of them decided to share this picture on Facebook, which has gone viral. He called this "simple logic". If you can't read it, it says:
Gun laws don't work because CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAWNow, I don't want to get into a whole 2nd Amendment debate and all that. There are good arguments from both sides that are worthy of debate. The ones this guy has been making, however, are of the STUPID variety.
So I responded:
Logic? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (It's a tautological statement.)To which he responded:
By that same logic, we should have no laws in this country because the bad guys will simply ignore them anyway.
Yeah. That is my logic. There should be no government because they are the ones that create the laws that must be enforced by force and violence. Coercion will not make a society prosper.Oh. It is on like Donkey Kong.
Can you provide me a government that has been successful in the true prosperity of the people through coercion and a monopoly on force? I guess using logic would mean you could prove what you are saying works... still waiting to see how a society can ever be peaceful when the very essence of the society is coercion...
Follow me below the fold for the examples he and I gave.
So I went with an easy case that many people forget about.
Norway. They're socialist. Strong regulations. Universal health care. QED.Well, that didn't sit well with him, so he moved the goalposts. See, naming a country wasn't good enough anymore, it had to fit specific criteria.
Meanwhile, we also have clear examples of governments with almost no laws and pesky regulations.
Population of Norway is less than 5 million. Aren't you a pro in statistics? What's the population of America? How big is America? How divided is America? I know you're all for coercion as a means of controlling a society but I don't. And a lot of other people don't either. So keep your opinions to yourself and stop forcing people who don't agree with you to do what you want. Is peace really that hard of a concept to understand? Btw another thing you forget about Norway is the fact that they have mandatory military service which means they're all trained to defend.Ah, Hong Kong. Yes, the country Milton Friedman praised for being the best example of a "free market" system in the world. But seriously? He's playing the Hong Kong card to a guy with Chinese parents? OK, first thing I do is call up my parents. They weren't intimately familiar with the Hong Kong economy, but knew enough to give me a few pointers. After a few Google clicks, I had all the information I needed. (Read this long piece if you want ALL the information that debunks just about everything Friedman said about Hong Kong. And this Economist article, though written by an obvious right-wing free marketer who laments how a minimum wage is bad for the economy, provides some useful background information as well.)
I know you casually enjoy changing the subject so you don't have to focus on the fact that your beliefs are only achievable through violence and force but let's stick to the topic here. Clear examples with societies with little regulation...but who cares about historical facts!!
Who cares that the country we live in became great due to the lack of regulation...
Commence epic smackdown.
Oh please, you asked, I answered. Now you've moved the goalposts. Oooh, the population isn't big enough. Why should that matter? LOL, you rejected Norway as an example simply because of population size, and then cite Hong Kong, which has only 7 million to make your point? But thanks for admitting that socialism WORKS in a population of 5 million people.Here are some additional links I used as references.
And we became great due to LACK of regulation?? Um, we ushered in the greatest era of economic prosperity and the growth of the middle class thanks to Glass-Steagall, which was one of the biggest regulatory laws ever on what banks could and could not do. And I gotta give Ron Paul credit, he knew that repealing it was a BAD idea, because it would basically let commercial banks run wild with our money once they merged with investment banks. Which is why he voted against repealing it, but it was repealed anyway.
And Hong Kong? Seriously?? OK, first the economic side of things. Friedman conveniently left out some things there because they would completely destroy his thesis. Like how Hong Kong had no problem giving handouts to rich tycoons for years, or folding a troubled bank into HSBC behind the scenes, or even nationalizing some of them in the 1980s to prevent a bank run. Or how their government's collusion with their version of Wall Street elites to make sure their top 1% stay wealthy makes us look like the most non-corrupt country ever. And he failed to mention how they can afford a low tax rate because the government owns ALL the land, and you have to lease directly from the government. That's where they get most of their money from. Hey, if you're OK with the "government" being your landlord, be my guest. And no military spending either, because they had a sugar daddy country pick up the bill for that (first the UK, then China). Also, since it's less than 500 sq. miles, there are no rural areas to hold back growth (I'm looking at you, Kansas). And guess who has a higher poverty rate, us or them? Though it still manages to provide universal health care even more socialist than Obamacare, and a strong public education system as well. :-)
But suuuuuuure, if you ignore all that, then Friedman is right about it being a "free market" system. ROFL!
Second, since this was about guns and the "monopoly on force" that you don't like, almost no civilian in Hong Kong is allowed to even own a gun. They've taken it to the other extreme, where ONLY the police and criminals have guns! THAT is your pride and joy example?? I'm seriously ROFL at how Friedman's best example of a free market system was a colonial DICTATORSHIP.
Seriously, don't bring an Asian country my parents have close ties to into the discussion, and think that you know more about it than I do. As my dad said, anything any white American has to say about China or Hong Kong is about "90% wrong". All you've demonstrated is that you can repeat talking points from old white men.
Poverty in Hong Kong
Protests over poverty
Info on gun laws in Hong Kong
So, as Rachel would always ask her guests, did I miss anything?
He hasn't responded yet, but I'm sure he will with some new incoherent rant, and try to change the subject again, and pretend he never brought up Hong Kong.
Update: Oh, he responded.
I didn't think what I believed in was so hard to understand. So let me explain: I believe in peace and freedom. I base all my beliefs off the non-aggression principle. I do not believe in coercion as a means of running a society. I believe everything should be done through voluntary transactions that result in benefits for all parties. The State has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century alone. You support coercion as a means of governing. I do not. That is the main difference between every single issue we see differently on. There can never be peace through coercion. As for demonstrating that I can repeat talking points from old white men... You are the king of repeating government propaganda talking points. Hey Sean....GIVE PEACE A CHANCE??? ♥So whaddaya think of that response?