posted
Warped: Those Canadians are just American wanna-be people. Hehe. They may call themselves Canadians.....but they're not happy with their country. HA!
posted
That's true Simon. Which is why people need to start taking responcibility again. If we didn't have guns and people were more often stabbed to death, then this country would have a multitude of knife laws governing the purchase of knives. Buying silverware would be a chore.
------------------ Think of it this way, at least we will be in prison together. Tom to B'Lanna, upon reaching Earth and and being arrested by Tuvok.
posted
The main reason Canadians move to the US is greed. It is to avoid our high taxes and to make more money in a bigger marketplace. The second reason is that or they want to move somewhere where rugged individualism means easy to get guns, and lots of paramilitary orginizations to join.
All in all this is probably one of the best aspects of Canada/US relations. Having the US so close to us helps filter out all the people who shouldn't be in Canada anyway.
posted
Which will eventually leave you with only the Inuits anyway.
Yes, actually, the solution IS "People Control."
Which comes back to that dreaded phrase, "Personal Responsibility."
Or put another way: I, who have no super powers, or even faith in a supernatural being and/or force guiding my actions, am capable of controlling by baser impulses.
I am, in virtually every way, a "normal" human being. In fact, I'm given to suspect that I have more problematic impulses than a lot of people. But I rule them, they do not rule me. I can, and have, overcome my "dark side."
Therefore, so can everybody else.
I practice the most pure form of "people control," I control myself.
Everyone is capable of that form strict "people control."
It's those who choose not to control themselves who are the problem for the rest of us. So our choices are:
1) Attempt to teach more people "people control." -- the best option, practiced by myself, except some people don't want to learn.
2) Let the government control them -- unpleasant, and demonstrably ineffective, as well as expensive.
3) Get rid of them. -- also unpleasant, even "inhumane," but entirely effective.
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
posted
Well there is another option which is to have the government control society around the people. This would include gun control and the elimination of factors which lead people to commit crimes. This isn't as effective as options 2 and 3, but it is far more humane.
------------------ Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoon to the philosopher, and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately it is the philosopher, not the protozoon, who gives us this assurance. -Russel
In order to effect the "elimination of factors which lead people to commit crimes", you would have to divest all humans of greed, stupidity, arrogance, lust, impatience, laziness, anger, love, etc.
I doubt you will be able to do this in the time it takes before the sun burns out.
Unless you teach them Option 1, and subject those who will not partake of Option 1 to Option 3.
But then, of course, Option 2 will become redundant.
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
posted
There is a great difference between actually controlling people, and liminting their motivaton and ability to cause crimes. I did not mean the elimination of basic emotions or human freedoms, which no government should ever do. Rather I mean eliminating the poverty, injustice, and lack of support for those who need it. As well things that have no purpose but to be used in crimes. Those are the things that cause most crimes and the things that could be eliminated without threatening the liberties all people deserve.
First: If you think those emotions can't be eliminated then I suggest reading some Orwell.
------------------ Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. -McLaughlin
posted
Personally, I think it's a misconception that "poverty" causes crime. I know folks with very little money who don't steal things. (of course in today's society, "poverty" means you don't own your own microwave oven. -- yes, they count people like that in the statistics)
You don't see people stealing to get something they NEED to survive. You see them stealing something that somebody else has that they WANT. If you NEED something, you can generally find somebody willing to give it to you, or to work with you so you can have it, especially if it will end up profiting them as well.
Injustice? How does life not being fair cause crime? Feh! I know life's not fair. Get used to it. I can see that there have been barriers in some folks's ways, and I'm all for the removal of said barriers, but that's still no cause.
Lack of support: well, there is that. Just a bloated system that doesn't really care. But on the other hand, there are a LOT of people who ABUSE the system that DOES exist, out of greed, which makes it just that much harder on everybody else.
People commit crimes out of stupidity, jealousy, greed, laziness, and anger. Rarely out of actual need. (yeah, I really NEED that stereo system, I really NEED that car, I really NEED that hit...)
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
'Need' is a concept created by the marketing agencies. The only things that people really need are food, water and a place to live. (and Star Trek of course).
------------------ Blackadder: I'm King *drops dead*
Printer-friendly view of this topic
