Gun control (for school essay)

[Coffee Vampire]

I think that part of Goodwill's profits go to charity, the charity itself is not to the people that shop there (middle class housewives who are thrifty...like my mom lol).

[Piotr]

I think that part of Goodwill's profits go to charity, the charity itself is not to the people that shop there (middle class housewives who are thrifty...like my mom lol).

Yup, in the UK I think it is all revenue after expenses that goes to a selected charity which patrons the shop. People work there as unpaid volunteers and the goods are donated, so I see buying in the shops a form of charity too. If you were a millionaire and bought the contents of the whole shop, they would kiss you to death

[NyghtHawk]

I dont think anybody is saying NO government, but America was founded on LIMITED government. The government here was founded to serve certain purposes, but over time and especially as of late the government has been taking a bigger role in the lives of the people and it quite frankly pisses a lot of people off.

And on a side note, social services as you mentioned Kanga a re fine, but they are all too often abused here and do not serve the purpose they were designed for. When people live off of it just because they can, thats a problem we need to fix and the government has yet to. The services are meant for temporary means and transitions, not extended or permanent means.

[Dudecore]

I always find it deeply ironic that people want to do away with government as much as possible, but cry out to the government whenever a business attains its ultimate goal of complete monopoly.

You need bureaucracy. If you cannot see that letting companies roam free will obliterate the human race I don't know what to tell you.

We need social services because people won't be provided for without them. It's simple to say just destroy it and let everyone fend for themselves, but we are humans, not animals.

If you want to behave like an animal then you must understand there is always a bigger dog.

I don't think anyone, or I'll speak for myself, described this type of arrangement. Multi-national corporations and monopolies are arranged when the government picks "winners and losers", as previously explained. The fact that corporations are not beholden to people, but instead the laws that favor them is a testament to that principle.

You cannot show me one instance of a monopoly that did not have anything to do with government favoritism. From John Rockefeller's sweetheart deal with the government for rail road exclusivity, to ridiculous weapons contracts and government payoffs to illegal seize land to develop.

Additionally, a free and informed people do not need someone extorting their money for bombs and wasteful spending. Bureaucracy usurps our freedoms as individuals to operate in a compassionate and caring way toward each other. When a corporation cannot be honest, because dishonest is the way the game is played - the play field is not level. It never will be.   

I am not in favor of Ayn Rand's objectivist bullcrap. Her and her followers subscribe to an ideology of "anarchy for rich people". I am firmly opposed to that.

[Mikefrompluto]

I live in CT and we have plenty of charity stores around here; goodwill, charity, etc. When I was younger I did 30 hours of community service at my local goodwill, and 70% of the shoppers there were middle class housewives. Talk about charity going to the wrong place lol

Most of Goodwill's charity goes to job training for people that may have a hard time doing it on their own. That's why they sell stuff. To bring in money to fund that. I think its a great idea.

There's also the Salvation Army, which gives clothes, rooms, and meals to the homeless, with the main focus being veterans I believe.

There's a really awesome charity in my city called Providence House. Its for single mothers. It gives them food, school supplies, clothes, and even a place to stay until the family can get back on their feet.

[Piotr]

I am not in favor of Ayn Rand's objectivist bullcrap. Her and her followers subscribe to an ideology of "anarchy for rich people". I am firmly opposed to that.

I understand her ideology a bitt different. She advocates justice defined as 'give to everyone what they deserve', specifically everyone deserve fruits of their work and no one deserve fruits of other's work. She advocates anarchy for everyone but for the sake of message clarity she focuses on people who are currently morally abused: honest entrepreneurs like me for example. I'm a greedy bastard but without my greed you wouldn't have this forum to flame on and the app to check the card rulings. My greed is not hurting anyone, on the contrary - and that is objective fact. I'm trying to get rich indeed but I can only do it by making other people happy, by supplying a product they love.

[Dudecore]

There is an obvious distinction between having an Internet forum and eating food. The ultimate problem with Ayn Rand is she chooses to argue against only the most extreme form of thankless sacrifice, effectively creating a straw man. She lumps an argument against extreme collectivism and arguments against even moderate societal altruism - considers them both bad. Although we know factually that humans are social animals and kindness is in our nature.

Objectivism is just a philosophy of ultimate self-centeredness that could allows anyone to justify any action, so long as they feel it beneficial to themselves, and some such actions may be overly cruel or unnecessary. It does not claim to make the world a better place, just allows them to do whatever they'd like. I believe you're sadly mistake if you think you're going to be successful in an Objectivist state - or that you're "one of them".

[Piotr]

There is an obvious distinction between having an Internet forum and eating food. The ultimate problem with Ayn Rand is she chooses to argue against only the most extreme form of thankless sacrifice, effectively creating a straw man. She lumps an argument against extreme collectivism and arguments against even moderate societal altruism - considers them both bad. Although we know factually that humans are social animals and kindness is in our nature.

Objectivism is just a philosophy of ultimate self-centeredness could allow anyone to justify any action, so long as they feel it beneficial to themselves, and some such actions may be overly cruel or unnecessary. It does not claim to make the world a better place, just allows them to pilfer the earth. I believe you're sadly mistake if you think you're going to be successful in an Objectivist state - or that you're "one of them".

This is not how I see objectivism. Objectivism simply argues that you should give to everyone what they deserve, and that everyone only deserve what they created themselves, under no circumstances they deserve things which belong to other people. The base for this logic is 'goal never justifies the means' and even higher up, 'do not do to others, blah blah'. There's nothing in objectivism or in iMtG Law which prevent social altruism, I would even say that the philosophy of both is the philosophy of altruism. I would't create iMtG Law and Ayn would't write her Atlas Shrugged if we didn't give a .poo. about others

We need to see the difference between extorted 'altruism' which comes at the cost of others, and altruism which is giving to the needy willingly, please.

State where the constitution would be iMtG Law is fully compatible with Ayn Rand ideals, how I understand them.

[Piotr]

I believe you're sadly mistake if you think you're going to be successful in an Objectivist state - or that you're "one of them".

Now this is an entirely different subject and I can assure you that I'm absolutely positive that I would do much better in an Objectivist state than in social democratic UK as it is now. I would bet my arm on it ;]

[Dudecore]

This is not how I see objectivism. Objectivism simply argues that you should give to everyone what they deserve, and that everyone only deserve what they created themselves, under no circumstances they deserve things which belong to other people. The base for this logic is 'goal never justifies the means' and even higher up, 'do not do to others, blah blah'. There's nothing in objectivism or in iMtG Law which prevent social altruism, I would even say that the philosophy of both is the philosophy of altruism. I would't create iMtG Law and Ayn would't write her Atlas Shrugged if we didn't give a .poo. about others

We need to see the difference between extorted 'altruism' which comes at the cost of others, and altruism which is giving to the needy willingly, please.

State where the constitution would be iMtG Law is fully compatible with Ayn Rand ideals, how I understand them.

Ayn Rand was very much anti-Marx, being a Russian herself during the Revolution. One can't help but think many of her ideas and distrust for everyone who wasn't the übermensch stems from those bad times. However she is misinformed about what is actually on the line. I don't think anyone's money should be confiscated, I believe a free and informed people are willing to donate their money and time to the greater good. This is where Ayn Rand and I differ. She infact condones and "rationalizes" imperialism, because she can rationalize anything that appears to be "for the good of capitalism". She negates the complete and utter value of "trust" in a relationship, likening it to a legal contract that must be adhered to - although no such contract need exist if you trust and appreciate others. She neglects the fact of building on the shoulders of others, and the part forced labor and slavery played in the formation of this wonderful capitalist enterprise she so readily enjoys.

I am going to respectfully bow out of this argument. The Internet sucks for typing debates and truly articulating my points.

[Piotr]

I am going to respectfully bow out of this argument. The Internet sucks for typing debates and truly articulating my points.

Fair enough, let me know when you are in the greater area of London so we can finish this in a pub

[Piotr]

Ayn Rand was very much anti-Marx, being a Russian herself during the Revolution.

Now that is entirely a different subject, and I must confess that while communist's Poland in the 70's and 80's wasn't as bad as Russia after Revolution, I've seen my good share of food rationing and people being murdered by the police state. A lot of my ideas stem from that time and I feel I understand better than an average Westerner how bad and evil socialism is... anyway, I'll shut up now, thanks for the debate

[Ghetto Pass]

As a gun shot victim myself, I have strong feelings on gun control.  And on guns in general.  I won't go into a tirade about my feelings as a lot of arguments for and against have been made.  If you would like a mature, civil conversation about firearms in America please feel free to message me. 

[Apathy Reactor]

I just can't get over your username though XD^

[Ghetto Pass]

I just can't get over your username though XD^

I got that nickname because I was shot.  It's been something of an ongoing joke for years.