Two Words

[DWC]

INDIVIDUAL: existing as a distinct, indivisible entity.

COLLECTIVE: denoting a number of individuals considered as one group or whole.

The 2nd amendment and all other civil rights recognized by the Constitution Collectively apply equally to each and every Individual Citizen of the USA.

Constitutionally compliant Laws regulating conduct Collectively apply equally to each and every Citizen Individually.

Each and every individual Citizen is responsible for his/her conduct and compliance with the Law. Failure to do so brings individual penalty. “Collective” penalties do not exist under our Constitution.

America as a body politic is made up of over 300,000,000 individuals; each at liberty to exercise their individual civil rights as they see fit within the limits of Constitutionally compliant Law which applies Collectively with equality for all.

All Rights are to the Individual

All Responsibility for conduct is borne by the Individual

All Rights and Responsibilities are recognized Collectively with Equality for All.

That is my take on my unalienable right to keep and bare arms.

What is yours?

Semper Fi,

[baldguy]

1. If only those individuals were responsible.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. We definitely...

...need to outlaw irresponsibility!

[SteveM]

30. Gun show purchases by thugs 1.7%? Maybe it's the cops. nt

[iverglas]

2. simple memes

for simple minds.


Tell me about your right to vote.
(We'll assume you have one, it being a Republic and all.)

Individual right, right?

Hmm. Actually, there is a collective right to self-determination in The People, which is exercised, in part, by The Citizens voting.

So. If you have a right to vote, you can vote when and where you want, right?

Today, tomorrow, next week -- you have a right to vote, not a right to vote when The Man tells you that you may vote.

Right?

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.

A representative government, being necessary to the existence of a republican state, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed.

And yet they have these things called "elections".

Human beings do not exist in some state of nature. They exist as members of collectives. Always have, always will. It's inherent in the whole "human being" thing.

Get over it.


All Rights are to the Individual
All Responsibility for conduct is borne by the Individual
All Rights and Responsibilities are recognized Collectively with Equality for All.
That is my take on my unalienable right to keep and bare arms.
What is yours?

Well ... my take on the above is exactly what it was last time you spouted it: what a completely meaningless sequence of utter pointless noise. As an attempt to argue some point, it isn't even in the ball park. As blank verse, it will not find a publisher.

Lemme ask you ... what is your take on the responsibility of the collective to individuals -- to provide emergency medical care? to provide basic education? to maintain the public roadways, provide police and fire services, impose and apply those penalties you speak of, ensure a minimum safety net that prevents death from starvation ... ?

Any such responsibility at all?

If your answer is "no", my question will be: why are you here?
If your answer is anything else, you will have made my case for me.

[DWC]

3. Have you quit beating your significant other yet?

You really have made my case.

Collective action is the basis of any strong society. We differ on how to achieve it.

Couple individual rights with individual initiative with collective action = The United States of America.

If you have something meanful to say, it never takes many words to say it.

Your volumes of words say volumes about their author.

Semper Fi,

[Kennah]

6. The right to assemble is implicitly collective

I mean I can't very well constitute an assembly all by myself, unless voices in the head are counted.

Free speech, due process, trial by jury, and a host of other rights don't automatically contain a collective component.

The right to bear arms has both. It is an individual right to keep and bear arms, but participation in a militia is collective. Militia of One? Not so much.

[DWC]

8. Different sides of the same coin

Right of assembly is definitely collective action. I consider an assembly to be comprised of individuals who have chosen to exercise their individual right to join with others in that assembly.

Individual Rights. Collective Action.

A free militia is a group of individuals who have chosen to exercise their individual rights to bear arms and to assemble with others in common defense of the collective.

Again, Individual Rights. Collective Action.

Semper Fi,

[Kennah]

11. I wonder whether rights not otherwise enumerated are individual or collective

[DWC]

14. I honestly believe all Rights are Individual

I know of no Right that, if exercised outside the limits of the Law, does not carry with it a penalty determined by the Law.

I know of not provision in Law for penalty of the Collective - Any Collective. In your example of the Right of Assembly; If an assembly turns violent and arrests are made, individual members of that assembly are arrested and individually face prosecution.

Individual Rights balanced by Individual Responsibility is the basis of a free people at liberty.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

43. "I know of not provision in Law for penalty of the Collective - Any Collective"

How about denial of 2A rights for "convicted felons" and "Illegal aliens"?

[iverglas]

49. the thing is, you don't know jack, Jack

I know of not provision in Law for penalty of the Collective - Any Collective.

Go find yourself some international law to read, would you? International law is "law", by the way.

Here's one for you, simplified down appropriately:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation. ...

The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

"The United States" is a collective -- the politico-legal expression of the right to self-determination of a people and of that people's decisions in that regard.

States, which are the politico-legal form taken by peoples, have rights and duties under international law, and may be penalized for violations of international law.

A people is a collective entity. It does have collective rights. The right to self-determination is perhaps the primary such right, a counterpart to the individual's right to life. A people's right to self-determination can be exercised by its individual members voting in elections held to choose the government of the state which is the politico-legal form taken by that people.


Individual Rights balanced by Individual Responsibility is the basis of a free people at liberty.

If I bothered trying to parse this utter burble you keep coming up with, my head would spin.

Really, this thread should just be allowed to go to the quiet grave its OP doomed it to for incoherence.

[Spoonman]

51. Nice try, but no cigar

Your stare decisis assertion of The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in basis for limiting an INDIVIDUAL right is fucking laughable!!!!!!

Ever hear the term apples to apples?

First year law school FAILURE!!!

Don't even bother trying to elaborate any further, you already look ignorant enough, and we already can see you are nothing more than a "jail-house lawyer".

Your fundamental understanding of the US Constitution, BoR, and "the law" in general is always amazing to behold.

Then again, feel free to continue entertaining us with your walrus bellowing, I need the laughs!!!!

[iverglas]

53. what in the fucking fuck are you on about?

Your stare decisis assertion of The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in basis for limiting an INDIVIDUAL right is fucking laughable!!!!!!

Have you lost the ability to read, or reason? Has to be one or the other, it seeeeems to me.

Nicaragua vs. U.S. has not a single thing to do with "an individual right".

Crap almighty, those lenses some people put on to see the world through do lead to them making idiots of themselves in public.

The case in question was a teeny tiny illustration of the existence of COLLECTIVES which are subject to LAWS and which have and can enforce RIGHTS, which can also be enforced against them.

Yeeeeeeesh.

It was offered to make short work of the idiocy it was actually posted IN REPLY to:

I honestly believe all Rights are Individual
I know of not provision in Law for penalty of the Collective - Any Collective.

Complete raving nonsense is what that was, and all it takes is reference to the collective rights of a people as embodied in a state and recognized in law to dismiss it. That being what I did.

What you've done is portray yourself as what many would perceive as a mannerless moron. Your choice.

[Spoonman]

57. "it seeeeems to me"

A lard ass can say; "it seems to me I'm 300 lbs overweight because god made me this way", but in the real world, he actually ate too damn many twinkies!

In YOUR world it's all logical, but in the REAL WORLD..........

A government overstepping it's lawful rights is a far cry from stomping on individual rights.

The U.S. was not acting as an individual, it was acting as the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COLLECTIVE!

I guess it's all too simple for your "complex" mind!


Please do us all a favor, spend your time writing the next great fictional novel.

[iverglas]

58. oh, fucking duh

The U.S. was not acting as an individual, it was acting as the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COLLECTIVE!

Actually, it was acting as the embodiment of the collective, but you're on the right track.

What point you thought you had, I still have no idea.

Maybe reading the thread instead of just looking for my posts would help?

... Well, in this particular case, I have to say I doubt that it would, but in general, worth trying.

[Spoonman]

61. "oh, fucking duh"

Pretty much sums up your legal "expertise".

Said "expertise" with which you try to support your position.

Have a nice weekend!

See ya!

[jmg257]

62. What exactly are YOU trying to say? 3 posts and I am still lost to your point.

Is it something of substance regarding Iverglas's US vs. Nic post?

Just want to understand..whatever it is you have issue with.

[Starboard Tack]

42. How do you feel about unions?

[jmg257]

52. Could be, but what a 'free militia' has to do with The Militia as mentioned

numerous times in the constitution is beyond me.

Being a member of the constitutional Militia of the Several States was mandatory for most of We, the People. It was not a right, it was a responsiblity. It sure helped that those Militia members also had the right to keep and bear arms, otherwise the Militia wouldn't be very effective - against tyranny & usurpers who might otherwise control their arms anyway.

Turned out the Militia was much more effective against foriegn armies when the actual arms they were mandated by the govt to provide themselves with were uniform, when they were collectively trained to common mandated regulations, and subject to a common mandated organizational structure.

Turned out a 'free militia' was often nothing more then an unreliable rabble in arms. Which is why The Militia as recognized and that pre-dated the constitution always existed with some governmental body/authority.

Also turned out in the long run that We, the People, as individuals and members of their collective States and United States, thought themselves better served by a Militia which was much more dependent on the government for arming, regulating and organizing then the one recognized in the constitution...which is why the definition was changed/broadened.

These days a free militia as you describe, nothing more then a bunch of guys assembling with guns, is often illegal.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. On voting.

The difference here is that voting only makes sense during elections.

Firearms may need to be used at any time. There are no fixed time periods when people may need to defend themselves.

Human beings do not exist in some state of nature. They exist as members of collectives. Always have, always will. It's inherent in the whole "human being" thing.

This is true, and we achieve are greatest (and worst) deeds by acting collectively.

But the collective can seldom come to the defense of the individual in his time of need. This is why individuals should and must be empowered to defend themselves, if they so choose.

[Starboard Tack]

44. "This is why individuals should and must be empowered to defend themselves, if they so choose."

Nobody would ever deny that right. What society has a right to impose is are limitations on how the individual gets to exercise that right. Toting a gun is apparently the simplest way for some. Others, like myself, find that solution simplistic and not conducive to the peaceful advancement of society. If one lives in the jungle, it's probably a good idea.

[ileus]

4. two words : Coach Gun

That's going to be my next buy....I've always wanted a double barrel.

[aikoaiko]

5. single or double trigger?

I know the double is classic, but I'd rather a single.

[ileus]

7. Single for me...

I'm leaning toward single trigger also, but is it reliable? I've read some negative threads about the singles.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

13. That's Ruger....I'm talking about a lesser quality stoeger.

I have 4 or 5 rugers at the moment in my collection and have owned several others without any failures except for a jam or two.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. I have a Remington SPR310 O/U single trigger... basically a cheap imported Baikal.

I use it for shooting clays. It's been nearly flaless.
I can only remember one time where it actually fired both barrels with one pull.

The auto shell ejector made opening the action a little gritty, so I swapped out the ejetors for exractors and it's very smooth now... plus it doesn't shoot you in the face with empty shells anymore.

[spin]

23. I own a 12 gauge Stoeger Coach gun ...

with double triggers. Seems to work fine.

[SteveM]

28. Well, all I got is an old Stevens 311D .12 ga. Good wood, metal, barrels...

made in 1955. Use it every year for bird hunting in areas where I might fall down.

[Hoyt]

17. Simple -- whether or not you have right to carry in public is debatable. But, no one has to tote.

I hope someday those who can't see themselves walking around in public without their gun(s), will reconsider. I know some will never find the courage to venture out into public parks, restaurants, universities, heathers, churches, bars, etc., without having to strap a gun or two on their bodies. But, I can hope.

[DWC]

18. We all hope for a society free from violence of any kind

Until that utopian society is achieved, I will continue to remain constantly prepared to defend myself and those in my charge.

"Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst."

Semper Fi,

[We_Have_A_Problem]

20. when crime...

...ceases to exist, then perhaps I'll cease taking precautions against it. Until then, I'll do what I consider best.

We all hope for a day when such a thing can be true, but to act like it already is true in the face of facts to the contrary is pretty damned stupid.

[PavePusher]

33. Note that Hoyt has never offered to help provide security for anyone else.

I wonder what he's afraid of?

[oneshooter]

21. And learn reading comprehension. n/t

[ileus]

19. safety first : hopefully some day oc and cc will be accepted as cell phones are now.

[Starboard Tack]

22. The 2nd Amendment mentions "people" and "militia"

FYI these are both collective nouns.

[DWC]

24. Definition for a group of individuals

People: Collective term encompassing every member of a group of individual human beings

Militia: A group of individual human beings that have joined together Collectively for the specific purpose of common defense.

Individuals coming together in common purpose equals Collective Action

Only Individuals have Rights. One of the most important Individual Rights is the Freedom to join with others in common cause for the purpose of Collective Action.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

25. Do you just sit there and make this shit up? Are you trying to rewrite the English language?

1
plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2
plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople> —often used attributively <people skills>
3
plural : the members of a family or kinship
4
plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class <disputes between the people and the nobles> —often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people
5
plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people

Definition of PEOPLE

Definition of mi·li·tia
noun \mə-ˈli-shə\
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia?show=0&t=1313531181

"Only Individuals have Rights"
I assume your mentor on this subject is Ayn Rand. You won't find too many Democrats embracing her philosophy of Objectivism. You appear to be espousing a right wing libertarian philosophy, or you are just confused.

Semper realis

[DWC]

26. Neither, but maybe confused.

The closest "tag" I have yet found to my political philosophy is Classical Liberalism.

My mentors are President Truman "The buck stops here" (personal responsibility) and

President Kennedy "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" (personal commitment to the National welfare)

Right, wrong, or somewhere in between?

The primary reason I spend time in this forum is to try to understand why some members of my party so adamantly support sacrificing any of the individual civil rights and freedom we have worked so long to see upheld.

Stay Real and

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

27. The primary reason I spend time in this forum

is to point out how people justify anti-social and foolish behavior, by claiming it as a civil right, when in truth they are denigrating the constitution they claim to uphold. The inevitable end result will be the loss of the civil rights they love so much. The arrogance of Americans amazes me at times when they say "Oh, it will never happen here. We're a free nation. We'll never become a police state." Well guess what, it's already happening and supporting the policies of the NRA and the right wing nutjobs will only accelerate the decline in freedom.

If you really respect Truman and JFK, then see personal responsibility as setting an example for the next generation. Do you truly want everyone to carry a gun around? Do you think that is progressive?
Do what you can do for your country, not for yourself. I'm sure you have proven that as a marine. Why wouldn't you feel that way in civilian life? Keep your guns. Keep them at home. Protect your home and family and bear them when called upon by the people to serve the people.

[SteveM]

29. Poor thinking here...

"The primary reason I spend time in this forum is to point out how people justify anti-social and foolish behavior, by claiming it as a civil right, when in truth they are denigrating the constitution they claim to uphold. The inevitable end result will be the loss of the civil rights they love so much. The arrogance of Americans amazes me at times when they say "Oh, it will never happen here. We're a free nation. We'll never become a police state." Well guess what, it's already happening and supporting the policies of the NRA and the right wing nutjobs will only accelerate the decline in freedom."

"anti-social and foolish behavior" can mean long hair, bell-bottoms and farting loudly in a bar; regardless, these behaviors are generally protected (whether you or I like it or not) by the Constitution.

The Constitution is not denigrated by such a "liberal" definition of things you don't like; only if you seek to change the Constitution to make loud motorcycles and the wearing of thongs on South Beach illegal.

As for "police states," you do realize that this is only possible (though not inevitable) when police have a monopoly on violence; i.e., guns? You realize that?

No one, once again, is advocating "everyone" walking around with a gun. Whether it's progressive or not is immaterial; you seem caught up in some kind of style thing.

You've seen that photo of Kennedy, Gore Vidal and Tennessee Williams target shooting at JFK's Palm Beach home? (Williams was a far better shot.)

[Starboard Tack]

34. I love target shooting

Toting concealed firearms is not sanctioned by the Constitution, it is enabled by misguided state legislators. Repukes and paid for Democrats who believe catering to the NRA is more important than improving the country we live in.

[SteveM]

45. I'm glad you like target shooting,..

Neither "toting" nor hippos-in-tutus, nor your posts are "sanctioned by the Constitution."

However, the Constitution DOES say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If you want to truly get down to "improving the country we live in," I would look at the whole damned Democratic Party, which can't seem to get enough of ceding everything it once believed in to the GOP; so much so that Obama had to appoint a "Super" committee to unclog the bottleneck.

BTW, you won't find much at ALL about gun-control in the Democratic Party Platform before the Smokey Robinson and the Miracles was charting. Gun control is a pop-up issue with little history in the Democratic Party (except in the Jim Crow South).

[gejohnston]

32. nice to know

is to point out how people justify anti-social and foolish behavior, by claiming it as a civil right, when in truth they are denigrating the constitution they claim to uphold. The inevitable end result will be the loss of the civil rights they love so much. The arrogance of Americans amazes me at times when they say "Oh, it will never happen here. We're a free nation. We'll never become a police state." Well guess what, it's already happening and supporting the policies of the NRA and the right wing nutjobs will only accelerate the decline in freedom.

I fail to see how it is anti-social. Since none of the dire consequences predicted have never came true, it seems that liberalizing CCW has not been a social bad. Sometimes it is far less than foolish. You can make an argument that it would be foolish for someone who hangs out in country clubs and gated communities. The lady being stalked by her abusive lunatic ex, for example, would hardly be foolish.
While right wing nut jobs have been in control of the NRA for roughly 30 years, economic and trade policies have nothing to do with the NRA. Some otherwise liberal, but still authoritarians, also supported things like the PATRIOT act.

[Starboard Tack]

35. You fail to see how toting a gun is anti-social because you look in the wrong place.

It has nothing to do with predictions of dire consequences. If someone with an infectious disease walked around spitting in people's faces, would you find that OK, as long as nobody contracted a disease? I think not.
The examples you present are not representative of the arguments made by toters. A woman being stalked by a loony ex has all kinds of legal recourse and if she needs to defend herself, a gun would be an unlikely choice. Almost without exception, the justifications I hear are from men, many of them decorated veterans, not vulnerable damsels in distress. Women, in general, seem to be way smarter when it comes to guns and I'd be far more likely to believe a woman's reason for toting than a man's, given the predatory nature of our gender.

[gejohnston]

36. yes they do have legal recourse

none of which is worth the paper it is written on, and the police can not and will not do anything preventive. Gun would be an unlikely choice? Maybe where you are from, not where I am from. Women do tend to be better shots than men by nature, but I don't buy your definition of smarter. Are you saying the marketing departments of Ruger and Smith and Wesson has their heads up their asses with the pink guns?

Either way, it is not up to either one of us, nor should it, to judge anyone's decision without really knowing their situation.

If someone with an infectious disease walked around spitting in people's faces, would you find that OK, as long as nobody contracted a disease?

Since no one is talking about putting a gun in anyone's face or any such thing, that is an awful analogy. If that is the right place to look, sorry.
If you are saying open carrying in a Quaker meeting would be anti social, then yeah I agree. Carrying concealed in a really creepy part of town,

The examples you present are not representative of the arguments made by toters.

So? Are you saying they have to conform to be valid?

[Starboard Tack]

38. "The closest "tag" I have yet found to my political philosophy is Classical Liberalism."

Then why are you on a Democratic forum? You are a long way from home my friend.
Conservatives and right-wing libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their beliefs.
You don't believe in social welfare programs.
You don't believe in unions.
You accept starvation as a form of population control.
You believe in armed intervention to protect markets.

[iverglas]

you beat me to it

"Classical liberalism" -- and I refer to the term and concept, and not to any person -- is code for "right wing".

It is sometimes used by people who for some reason want to adopt the cloak of "liberalism"; why, I wouldn't know, and again, I speak in generalities not dependent on anything or anyone in this forum.

[DWC]

46. Guess I am confused

I do support social welfare programs that provide a minimum safety net in times of need.

I do not support a social welfare State "cradle to the grave"

I do support the benefits of unions and the absolute right of anyone to join and be represented by a union.

I do support Right to Work by non-union members and the freedom of employers to hire and fire whomever they choose.

To assert that I "accept starvation as a form of population control" or for any purpose is beyond ridiculous and does not deserve a response.

I do support a standing military and the concept of Peace through Strength.

I do not support armed intervention to extend a forced political and/or economic agenda on other Sovereign Nations.

So, what "tag" fits?

[Starboard Tack]

47. You sound more like a Classical Liberal rather than a Social Liberal

Not that unusual in this forum, and much closer to RW Libertarian than most Democrats, whom I would describe as Socialist lite.
You tell me which tag fits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Core_...

For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.<22> Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."<17> They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law".<23> Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Why don't you take this test and find out where you stand?

http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/

[iverglas]

50. I prefer this one ;)

www.politicalcompass.org

The one you linked to is bizarrely biased, and not just because of its US-centricity.

Once upon a time, gun ownership was a constitutional right, on par with freedom of speech. Today, guns are registered, and you are considered unfit to own a gun until proven fit. In some cities, gun ownership requires a very hard-to-get permit.

The federal government is making more and more demands on employers to favor certain groups. Firing workers puts employers at great risk of very expensive lawsuits. With harassment laws, freedoms of speech and expression in the workplace are being severely curtailed in the name of Civil Rights.

?? Gimme a break.

I'm in the middle of doing it and expect to be told what I am told by the usual loonytarian political "tests" ...

Yeah, haha, that result isn't even particularly coherent, and it's just loonytarian bullshit anyway (after presenting my results, it sets out to convert me to right thinking with the reading it suggests - quite amusing!):



Well, hm, oh well.

If you do it and see the graph, it puts me down toward the bottom (authoritarian) point of the "liberal" diamond. My 100% foursquare commitment to universal public education appropriate for our times probably did me in on that "libertarian" business ... along with my approval of prohibiting handguns for possession by members of the public, failing to approve of legalized prostitution ... even though I went all out for drug legalization and approve of a draft only in times of (real) war ... Methinks the test had made its mind up before I started.

"Economic liberal", me? Not in any sense that anyone outside the US would understand. "Authoritarian"? To a right-wing loonytarian, maybe, although they don't actually come more authoritarian than Ron Paul, for example.

I'm actually a social democrat in practice, a libertarian socialist by inclination, by any normal definition.

Give the political compass a shot.


2011 Canadian federal election


2008 US presidential election


On that one, I'm in the far lower left corner, around -8/-8 generally.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Yeah I found it after I posted the other. Much better

This was my result
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-6.25&soc=-6.36

[iverglas]

55. I especially like these bits

The Libertarians' choice of diehard conservative Bob Barr is particularly odd. Their party is now led by an anti-choice enthusiast for the death penalty who initially supported the Patriot Act, though later regretted it. He is also pro teacher-led prayers. While Libertarians tend to place more importance on economic matters, Barr has nevertheless not displayed unbridled enthusiasm for free trade, although he ticks most of the right boxes on matters of taxation and public spending.

And of course note Ron Paul's position on the axes.

Authoritarian/right-wing ... self-interest ... such a familiar ring.

:rofl:

Maybe some of our new friends will join in and take the test, with as much candour as thee and me did, of course.

[DWC]

56. Here is mine

I don't know how to post a picture here

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

59. well, not Atilla the Hun, by that

But not exactly a libertarian leftist ...

Seems like Dennis Kucinich is your man, though. Good?

[Starboard Tack]

63. Best way is to copy/paste the link

Your score puts you pretty much in the center of the spectrum, but definitely inside the tent. Now, come on down to where Iverglas and I hang out in the lower left part of the green box.

[DWC]

65. Thanks for the invite

but for now, some of the folks over there are just too close to socialism for me.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

60. heh, I thought maybe today I was feeling more strongly about some stuff

but it came out pretty much the same as last time I did it (some months ago)

Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.25&soc=-7.85

One good thing about it is how it doesn't try to aggregate one's scores into some kind of personality analysis. ;)

[Starboard Tack]

64. Interesting. I think we differ on the draft and prostitution issues.

I support a public service draft, not military (unless the individual chooses it). And prostitution is never going away, so it might as well be legal and regulated, maybe German style.

[iverglas]

41. "both" for $1000, Alex?

I assume your mentor on this subject is Ayn Rand. You won't find too many Democrats embracing her philosophy of Objectivism. You appear to be espousing a right wing libertarian philosophy, or you are just confused.

As we all know ...

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - Paul Krugman

[Glenn Vardy]

31. Only individuals have rights?

"Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their COLLECTIVE RIGHTS." - US v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542
------------------

"§ 208. In like manner the word "state" is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense it means the people composing a particular nation or community. In this sense the state means the whole people, united into one body politic; and the STATE, and THE PEOPLE of the state, are EQUIVALENT expressions. Mr. Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word "state" in its broadest sense. "In free states," says he, "the people form an artificial person, or body politic, the highest and noblest, that can be known. They form that moral person, which in one of my former lectures, I described, as a complete body of free, natural persons, united together for their common benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating, and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests, which it ought to manage; as enjoying RIGHTS, which it ought to maintain; and as lying under obligations, which it ought to perform. To this moral person, we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified appellation of STATE." -Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

[DWC]

37. Thank you for the clarification

Yes, Sovereign States have rights recognized by the Constitution. Smaller geopolitical entities such as counties and cities have rights recognized by the Sovereign States.

My intended point is that any group of individual citizens, joined in common purpose or cause (ie, a Collective) and recognizing the obvious exceptions stated above has, and can exercise no Rights beyond those held by its Individual members.

Semper Fi,

[Buzz cook]

40. Not quite

"My intended point is that any group of individual citizens, joined in common purpose or cause (ie, a Collective) and recognizing the obvious exceptions stated above has, and can exercise no Rights beyond those held by its Individual members.
'

Citizens United gave greater rights to collectives (corporations) than any individual.
Collectives (religions) have greater rights than any individual. Imagine if you will an individual claiming a religion of one and demanding the rights of organized religion.
Collectives (private golf clubs) are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex and race. An individual business owner cannot, thank goodness.

Corporations in general have many rights which aren't attached to an individual.


The individual uber alles is a popular libertarian/randroid party trick, there is no society only the individual. It makes perfect sense that the individual is the ultimate actor, but when the rubber hits the road it is meaningless. The libertarian is left clinging to his pretty conceit while his listeners just get irritated at the one notedness of the argument.

[iverglas]

39. if there were no collective rights

there would be no United States of America.

Yeesh.