america vs. the world- blind americanism continued

[Sander]

Honestly? There's nothing "preposterous" about attempting to keep a mind-altering drug from becoming a detriment to society as much as alcohol has. What is preposterous is the billions of dollars we spend each year to enforce these laws, which only increases the profitability of the sale of marijuana. This is why many politicians are rethinking that legislation.

For a drug that's absolutely not harmful, the laws are preposterous. Especially in comparison to the laws on other illegal things.

Honestly, I don't see what our treatment of non-citizens has to do with our personal freedoms

Honestly, I don't see how you could possibly treat people like that and still claim to be the land of freedom. WHen you can lock people up without trial or defense, you're going against their rights and freedoms.

I wouldn't call it an abomination, but it is a slight infringement on our rights, which is why a lot of Democrats and Republicans are thinking of repealing it.

Well, it sure has limited the freedom of people, hasn't it? I doubt you can have a discussion anywhere safely saying that terrorism isn't so bad, which is just a form, of free speech.

I believe the man's point was that as a society America is the freest country in the world. Most likely because our sens of nationality is based on ideals rather than being inherent to genetics or regional loyalty. All citizens are "True Americans."

And I'm trying to debate why that's not true.

 

[Bradylama]

For a drug that's absolutely not harmful, the laws are preposterous. Especially in comparison to the laws on other illegal things.

I wouldn't say "absolutely" non-harmful. Though its true that nobody has died of a Marijuana overdose, or from the effects of its usage, the long term effects of regular marijuana are negative in terms of a societal standpoint. Frequent marijuana usage causes loss of short-term memory, and a severe drop in reaction time. Which destroys one's productivity.

Honestly, I don't see how you could possibly treat people like that and still claim to be the land of freedom. WHen you can lock people up without trial or defense, you're going against their rights and freedoms.

Uhm, no. See, they don't have any rights or freedoms because they're not US citizens. They're also enemy combatants, which technically makes them prisoners of war. The only rights they have are their basic human rights, which they are granted. They still feel the need to throw their shit at the jailers however.

Well, it sure has limited the freedom of people, hasn't it? I doubt you can have a discussion anywhere safely saying that terrorism isn't so bad, which is just a form, of free speech.

The devil are you talking about?

And I'm trying to debate why that's not true.

I'm saying that America is the freest society in the world. But it really depends on personal opinion. America is a system that guarantees the pursuit of one's goals and opportunities, while your system guarantees the lack of need.

But I'd rather not get into a debate on socialism.

 

[Paladin Solo]

I am sorry, but please tell me why and how the patriot act affects you Sander. Or do you just find the need to always complain about the way America is running things at home. It has kept us safe from further attacks thus far. If another 9-11 like attack happens to us, the patriot act will probably die with those that do. Would you be crying freedom if this was your country Sander? If you had to live in fear of a bunch of extreemists wanting to destroy you and everything you represent? And about the drugs, what harmless drugs are you talking about Sander? This war on drugs is a good thing, when I have my children, (hopefully) I wouldn't want them doing drugs, but would feel comforted that if they do, they will have hell to pay. What kind of message would we be sending to kids if we allowed the legalization of drugs? People in the world are already dumb enough as it is. Let's not make it any worse. Crime will not end with the legalization of drugs. They will just find something else. Would you prefer they sell child pornography on the streets instead of drugs. Well, some already might, but its not on a mass scale. Then, people will cry, legalize child porno and perhaps the criminals will go away. Why should I sacrifice the good things in life for a bunch of lousy thugs? The US is already messed up as it is, how is legalizing drugs going to make it any better?

 

[Bradylama]

The point somebody made on another message board was that we live in a Information Age. Since America is the center of this information revolution, America's business sortof becomes the world's business.

The global economy's success is highly reliant on the success of America.

Looking at things from that perspective, foreigners have every right to express their opinions on America's domestic policies.

 

[Sander]

I wouldn't say "absolutely" non-harmful. Though its true that nobody has died of a Marijuana overdose, or from the effects of its usage, the long term effects of regular marijuana are negative in terms of a societal standpoint. Frequent marijuana usage causes loss of short-term memory, and a severe drop in reaction time. Which destroys one's productivity.

Well, none of those effects have been proven(for as far as I know), but now you're arguing that someone cannot decide for themselves whether to smoke marijuana or not. SOme freedom, eh?

Uhm, no. See, they don't have any rights or freedoms because they're not US citizens. They're also enemy combatants, which technically makes them prisoners of war. The only rights they have are their basic human rights, which they are granted. They still feel the need to throw their shit at the jailers however.

My main point here with regard to the domestic freedom was that if things like that happen with prisoners of war, they could also happen at home. It would only be a small step.'

The devil are you talking about

I meant that due to the privacy that is being violated by the US PATRIOT act, and the fact that you can get arrested without saying why you got arrested besides something with terrorism, is bad for freedom.

King: Some (semi)wise words for you:
Do not get into debates you don't know anything about. Do not jump to conclusions. And do not get upset about people saying that things should be done better. It's my right to claim whatever I want, if I want to express my opinion I have every right to do so, because I'm not living under a dictatorship. You may not like criticism, but it will always be there, and just saying that someone shouldn't be critical isn't going to help anything. WHat's more, by saying that people shouldn't criticise because they don't live in your country means that you would like to remove all external effects on the USA besides those that are beneficial. Hah! Bloody nice thinking....

Would you be crying freedom if this was your country Sander? If you had to live in fear of a bunch of extreemists wanting to destroy you and everything you represent?

Yes, King, I think I would. YOu cannot judge my actions and thoughts, because you don;t know how I think. Just because YOU may think that way, does not mean that I have to think that way.

And about the drugs, what harmless drugs are you talking about Sander? This war on drugs is a good thing, when I have my children, (hopefully) I wouldn't want them doing drugs, but would feel comforted that if they do, they will have hell to pay. What kind of message would we be sending to kids if we allowed the legalization of drugs? People in the world are already dumb enough as it is. Let's not make it any worse. Crime will not end with the legalization of drugs. They will just find something else. Would you prefer they sell child pornography on the streets instead of drugs. Well, some already might, but its not on a mass scale. Then, people will cry, legalize child porno and perhaps the criminals will go away. Why should I sacrifice the good things in life for a bunch of lousy thugs? The US is already messed up as it is, how is legalizing drugs going to make it any better?

MARIJUANA.IS.HARMLESS! It's the safest drugbin the world. IN fact, it's the safest MEDICINE in the world. Caffeine is more dangerous than marijuana.
THIS is what I meant about getting into debates you don't know anything about. You are so full of shit here it's unbelievable. I make one comment that the marijuana(not drugs, marijuana) laws are preoposterous, and you go off on a huge rant about how the USA won't get any better by legalizing drugs and selling child pornography on the streets. WHAT.THE.FUCK?

edit- minor fix on the quote- carry on. Welsh

 

[Bradylama]

Well, none of those effects have been proven(for as far as I know), but now you're arguing that someone cannot decide for themselves whether to smoke marijuana or not. SOme freedom, eh?

Old hippies don't look like that for nothin'. I never said that it wasn't an infringement of freedom, I said it was a worthwhile goal to keep something from becoming as much a detriment to society as alcohol. It has failed however, miserably.

Besides, I don't believe such legislation is acceptable. A man's body is his own domain, even if he can't take care of it.

My main point here with regard to the domestic freedom was that if things like that happen with prisoners of war, they could also happen at home. It would only be a small step.'

We have something called a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of American citizens. POWs are only protected by the Geneva Convention, of which we have adhered to.

It would in fact, be a huuuge fucking step.

I meant that due to the privacy that is being violated by the US PATRIOT act, and the fact that you can get arrested without saying why you got arrested besides something with terrorism, is bad for freedom.

Which is why the legislation is being re-thought. Though if it was Unconstitutional then how did it get by the Judiciary?

And about the drugs, what harmless drugs are you talking about Sander? This war on drugs is a good thing, when I have my children, (hopefully) I wouldn't want them doing drugs, but would feel comforted that if they do, they will have hell to pay. What kind of message would we be sending to kids if we allowed the legalization of drugs? People in the world are already dumb enough as it is. Let's not make it any worse. Crime will not end with the legalization of drugs. They will just find something else. Would you prefer they sell child pornography on the streets instead of drugs. Well, some already might, but its not on a mass scale. Then, people will cry, legalize child porno and perhaps the criminals will go away. Why should I sacrifice the good things in life for a bunch of lousy thugs? The US is already messed up as it is, how is legalizing drugs going to make it any better?

Of course, your children could have "Hell to Pay" in the form of luxury taxes. Or from you. They are your children after all. One would think you could raise them well enough not to do drugs.

And child pornography can never be sold on the streets. Children under the age of 18 are considered immature and unfit to make decisions concerning their well being. As such, Child Pornography is illegal as the children featured in such things are being victimized for personal gain.

You're also fighting a losing battle I'm afraid. By 20 years every drug should be legalized.

 

[Tromboner999]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[geekpocket]

Tromboner999 wrote:

what happened in the Senate chambers in October 2001 was an irresponsible and fear-based overreaction to a completely vague threat.

How is 5,000+ people dying in an internationally coordinated multi-state terrorist attack a vauge threat? Or maybe you were referring to the threats that people were perceiving in the months following 9/11? After what happened, I think people were more inclined to listen to those vauge threats so they could protect themselves. I also think that the Patriot Act wasn't what was needed, but to say that they over-reacted to "vague threat" is crazy-talk. About a month and half prior they had just been hit with what may have previously been called a vague threat. It would make sense then to take some precautions and possibly rethink how you interpret threats.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Right, lets legalize coccaine! Would you feel better if I agreed with you 24/7. Sander is talking to me about critiscism? I can handle it Sander, can you? Give me one good reason why we should legalize *HARMFUL* drugs. One. Tell you what, when your loved one dies of drugs, illegal, harmful ones, think to yourself, should've I supported legalizing drugs. It's people like me, who know from personal experience of what harmful drugs like pcp, coccaine, methanol, etc... does to someone who is completely innocent of those drugs but are dramatically affected by others using it. I suppose, it's the poor, honest people like myself that must pay for your right to be "high." Legalize drugs then, support the legalization, but just sit there and wonder, how the hell are people dying from other idiots who illegaly use them and decide to go out and do things under the influence. Imagine, the numbers dying after you legalize them. Look how many are dying now. Ok, I guess if you really want for innocent people to die then go ahead. Even if they were the ones who died from using it, it could be your child one day.

 

[Bradylama]

Give me one good reason why we should legalize *HARMFUL* drugs. One.

The billions of dollars we spend each year on border controls and domestic arrests and incarcerations. Billions that only end up increasing the profitability of drug smuggling. Which every single day only makes druglords more powerful.

Its kinda like what Prohibition did for the Mafia.

Though if you like supporting organized crime then that's up to you.

 

[Sander]

Right, lets legalize coccaine! Would you feel better if I agreed with you 24/7. Sander is talking to me about critiscism? I can handle it Sander, can you?

1. Cocaine is not marijuana.
2. Seeing as how you went off on a rant about how I shouldn't criticise, I'm pretty sure you aren't handling it very well.

Give me one good reason why we should legalize *HARMFUL* drugs. One.

Now where did I say anything about that?
I.SAID.MARIJUANA! I did not say all drugs. All drugs is not marijuana. There, is that simple enough for you to understand?

Now, there is an argument for legalising drugs, however: freedom of action. If you do drugs, it doesn't hurt anyone else directly. That's an argument for it. But I'm not supporting legalising all drugs, because it wouldn't really work. At least not in this society.

 

[Bradylama]

For the record: I am for the legalization of all drugs.

 

[Tromboner999]

Geekpocket wrote:

5,000+ people

I thought it was closer to 3,000 deaths. But let's not quibble over numbers.

I maintain my belief that passing the PATRIOT Act was a hasty overreaction to a vague threat for 2 main reasons:

1. We didn't know enough at the time to make a rational descision about anything, nevermind a law that limits civil liberties. The rationale presented by Bush and the Justice Department was that this would aid in detering future acts of terror, but we weren't even sure who we were going after (which is why it was a "vague threat"). We still aren't sure, really. Who is Al-Quieda? Are they even responsible for what happened? How will limiting our personal freedoms help deter terrorism? It just doesn't make sense to me.

2. Everyone in America was panicked and terrified. What you called "being more inclined to listen to vague threats" I call being panicked into taking action to reassure the public that things are under control. Most legislators agreed that something had to be done quickly to curtail widespread pandemonium. That's what a government is supposed to do in times of crisis; it's just that Bush and Ashcroft were able to use this opportunity when Congress (and everyone else in America) was terrified and distracted to ram this ridiculous piece of legislature down their throats.

I really didn't mean to barf my opinion all over this thread...but I did and I'm sorry. I hope you'll all forgive me.

--Boner

 

[Murdoch]

USA PATRIOT ACT

I thought it was closer to 3,000 deaths. But let's not quibble over numbers.

You're numbers are accurate, and quibbling over 2,000 deaths is important given the context. Exaggeration is the next thing to happen in war, after the loss of the truth.

We still aren't sure, really. Who is Al-Quieda? Are they even responsible for what happened? How will limiting our personal freedoms help deter terrorism? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think that the link between Al-qaida and Sept 11 is pretty concrete. They did take credit afterall, and the hijackers were trained by them. The link between Iraq and Al-qaida is another matter though...not that you were discussing it.

The USA Patriot Act was not an overreaction on the part of the Bush Administration. They want these controls to allow the expansion of 'Big Brother', to control information and silence dissent. The act's benefits in the war on terrorism are secondary, even ancillary. It has been shown that most terrorist communication is through electronic means, and the NSA and CIA already intercept all electronic messages, looking for buzzwords and establishing links between known and new terrorist cells. Hell, they'll flag this message because it contains some of those buzzwords-guess which ones.

The USA Patriot Act does not address what it was intended to do, which is deter terrorism. To do so the act would have to allow them to track all encrypted email and users across international borders, something which even the US cannot do (overtly, at least). The USA Patriot Act infringes upon the rights of the citizenry more than hindering the movement of information between terrorists, which is why it should be revised, if not scrapped.

References, certainly not exhaustive:
http://www.slate.com/id/2088193/
http://www.slate.com/id/2087984/
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/

Please don't take anyone's word for any of this people. It is too important to leave to someone else to research. Look for yourself, and if you can still honestly say that the USA Patriot Act has the best interests of freedom at heart, I can accept that, although never agree.

------------
DRUGS

You're all misinformed, I believe. Anyone who says that all drugs should be legalized has a view of freedom bordering on anarchy.

Personal freedom to do drugs is fine, but when you can also drive a car, the most deadly weapon most of us are exposed to, that's when I have a problem. You doing drugs does hurt other people, just not all the time, and in every instance. IMO it's this uncertainty that is the worst part: how do I know that asshole in the next car isn't high on something?

Anyone who says that all drugs should be banned is a fascist. If I want to get smoked up in the comfort of my home, without driving or affecting others but for jonesin' for Papa John's pizza, that's my damn business get the hell out of my life!

Life is a series of compromises people, and I'm sory King that you've seen others hurt by drugs, but so have most of us. It is your brand of blanket prostelytizing (preaching) that gets us nowhere

/rant

 

[geekpocket]

Murdoch, you're right about not exaggerating numbers. I didn't know for sure what the number was. But my point was that it was in the thousands. although i dont think it would be any less tragic if the death toll was only in the hundreds.

 

[Bradylama]

When I say "legalize all drugs" I mean to legalize them for private use. Alcohol may be legal but it is illegal to drive under the influence.

 

[welsh]

Getting back to the topic of differences between the US and the rest of the world, I think something we have missed is wealth.

So (yes another economist article), you might find this interesting.

Apparently size does matter. THis might go to some of the problems Europe has been having lately.

When small is beautiful

Dec 18th 2003
From The Economist print edition


How big should a nation-state be?

OF THE ten richest countries in the world in terms of GDP per head, only two have more than 5m people: the United States, with 260m, and Switzerland, with 7m. A further two have populations over 1m: Norway, with 4m and Singapore, with 3m. The remaining half-dozen have fewer than 1m people. What do such variations imply about the link between population size and prosperity?

People have been debating the optimal size of a nation-state since the days of Aristotle. Understandably, given the diminutive size of Greek city-states, he thought that “experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws.” The Founding Fathers of the United States fretted about the excessive size of their new nation; but James Madison argued that large size might be an advantage in a democracy, because it reduced the likelihood that special-interest groups would be able to act in unison to suppress the rights of other citizens.

Now two economists, Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Enrico Spolaore of Brown University, explore the question in a new book* on the subject. Its importance has grown in the past half-century, as old political empires have disintegrated: more than half the world's countries now have fewer people than the state of Massachusetts, which has about 6m.

The book argues that the best size for countries is the result of a trade-off between the benefits of scale and the costs of heterogeneity; and that openness to trade alters this trade-off. The gains from being big are considerable. Large countries can afford proportionately smaller government (although they often don't). Essential running costs can be spread over many taxpayers. Embassies, armies and road networks are all likely to cost less per head in populous countries. Defence in particular is cheaper for giants. “It is only safe to be small in a peaceful world,” say the authors (who, unusually for economists, offer two stimulating chapters on conflict, war and the size of nations).

Large countries are able not only to spend more efficiently; they can also raise taxes in more cost-effective ways. Income taxes are more efficient than customs duties, but require a bigger initial bureaucracy. Large countries have bigger internal markets, allowing more specialisation and returns to scale. And they can redistribute resources geographically, providing insurance when one part of the country is hit by disaster or recession and shifting income from rich regions to poor ones.

But size has costs too. Thus large countries are also likely to have a diverse population whose varying preferences and demands a government may find hard to meet: America, Brazil and India are cases in point. A study of local government in the United States suggests that Americans are willing to put up with the higher running costs of small municipalities and school districts in exchange for living in communities with little variation in income, race or ethnicity. This could imply that people also prefer to live in more homogeneous countries. With the main exception of America, successful big countries (such as Japan) have relatively homogeneous populations.

One implication of this analysis is that, where the preferences of a country's people count, their country is likely to be smaller than it would otherwise be. Dictators typically suppress dissent, regional or ethnic. They see the benefits of size (and grab many of them); democracies are more conscious of its costs. So there are few recent examples of mergers between nation-states (North and South Yemen and the two Germanies are rare exceptions) but many of secession. The main reason for the resulting rise in the number of mini-countries is the shift from empire or dictatorship to self-determination, especially in the past quarter-century. “Borders need to satisfy citizens' aspirations,” observe the authors.

However, the trade-off between the costs and benefits of size is affected by another factor: trade restrictions. The importance of economic size for prosperity depends crucially upon how open a country's economy is. Small countries that may not be viable in a world of trade restrictions can prosper when trade is liberal and markets are open. “Henceforth,” say the authors, “one should expect economic integration and political disintegration to go hand in hand, in a mutually reinforcing process.” An instance: the existence of the North American Free Trade Area has arguably reduced the cost of separatism to Quebec.

The American exception
None of this, however, satisfactorily explains the United States. It has a hugely successful economy and one of the world's highest levels of income per head, yet is also one of the most diverse countries on earth. Surely this winning combination of size and heterogeneity disproves the trade-off theory?

The answer, says Mr Alesina, lies partly in history: as in many countries, borders are partly a legacy from the past. In America, the cost of heterogeneity was a protracted and bloody civil war. More important is America's federal structure. If the United States were as centrally ruled as, say, France, the country would break up.

In fact, a world of small economies with open borders will have to replicate America's federal strength. It will need more supra-national organisations, with more power, to preserve markets and co-ordinate policies. The European Union may be a prototype of such bodies, combining large economies of scale with political independence. For the small countries about to join it—Malta, the Baltic states, Slovenia—that is good news. And would-be separatists everywhere need to become free-traders, if they are to aspire to prosperous independence.

 

[Sander]

Another thing which hasn't been discussed here that much, now, is the fact that the USA seems to need a common enemy to fare well.

Before the Second World War, the USA was mostly isolationist. But, as soon as they got a common enemy(Germany/Japan), the country mobilised in all it's power and kicked their asses. After the Second World War there was the possibility that the gian would retreat back to it's own continent and not bother anymore-but there was the Soviet Union and it's "communist threat"(Which wasn't actually all that real for the USA, since both the SU and the USA were too scared by eachother to do anything), and that new common enemy united the United States and gave them a common purpose to attack, resulting in McCarthyism(McCarthy Hearings: http://www.rotten.com/library/history/huac/McCarthy_Hearings_Part_1/ ). Of course, anyone who had communist sympathies or was thought to have communist sympathies had to be destroyed, obliterated and the country had to be cleared of the communist taint. Anyone who could even remotely be considered to have at some level communist sympathies was made a victim. There was even such an organisation of film-makers and actors who made lists of "suspect" people. Charlie Chaplin was one of the victims, and he never wanted to return to the country again.
And then communism disappeared. There was no more common enemy, and then Bill Clinton rose to power. Relatively peaceful years ensued, without a large common enemy. But then George W. Bush became president, and after a while, after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the terrorists became the new common enemy. War was declared on terrorism, several states were labelled as being pure evil, and Afghanistan was invaded. The USA PATRIOT act was created and the prison on Guantanamo Bay was used to circumvent POW and just general civilian laws(And yes, both POWs and other people should have the same rights as USA-citizens(It's called equality)). People of ethnic minorities were suddenly singled out, and now another McCarthy-like witchhunt might begin.

Thoughts, anyone? Where am I wrong, or right?

 

[Wooz]

Sader wrote:

and now another McCarthy-like witchhunt might begin.

That's where you're wrong. It has already begun, only in a larger scale, with all the pompous media around it, tv shows, movies, even some PC games, boasting the Righteousness of Our Noble Cause To Kill Foul Subhuman Terrorists of Darkness.

 

[John Uskglass]

Sader wrote:

and now another McCarthy-like witchhunt might begin.

That's where you're wrong. It has already begun, only in a larger scale, with all the pompous media around it, tv shows, movies, even some PC games, boasting the Righteousness of Our Noble Cause To Kill Foul Subhuman Terrorists of Darkness.

I am sorry you belive that men who would expand Dar al-Islam to your nation, destroy your culture, rape your women and kill your friends are equal to you.