Monday, February 18, 2013

Why the world is doomed, Part Five

Not in my backyard. That phrase was made famous during debates on where to put things that people want. Power plants for example. Everyone wants electricity to work when they turn something on, but nobody wants a power plant in their neighborhood. So everyone wants the Government to reduce spending, but not on any program or project that they personally benefit from. The poor and elderly want no changes to welfare, social security, medicare, or any other program that benefits them. The people who work in or for the Defense industry don't want any cuts to that, because it benefits them. School teachers demand more federal money for their program, despite the fact that additional money has never increased the amount of education that children get.

In the end, the Federal Budget continues to grow, because nobody will give up what they personally have. And they want even more of what they have. For generations we have always satisfied the demands of the people by printing more money. In the end, the world is doomed because of the collective greed of the people.

Even the Green tech that the liberals love suffers from the same problem. They want wind generators, but not in the areas they live in. The famous example was the wind farm off the Kennedy compound in Massachusetts. Sure the Kennedy clan was all in favor of alternative energy, but just not where they liked to go yachting. In other words, not in my backyard.

The bad part is, it isn't only the public utilities, like power, that are used this way. The poor normally suffer the worst, having their houses, and towns ravaged by Eminent Domain to benefit those with the power. The rich, and the politically connected. It isn't the Republicans that have the market cornered either. In Michigan, under the Democratic Governor Granholm, when the state was majority Democratic in every elected office, a black neighborhood was slated for destruction for a Golf Course and associated golf living.

Power plants, industrial areas, even Prisons face the same hurdles. Things people want or need, they don't want near them. Modern Prisons are as close as possible to escape proof. Yet even with that simple fact, nobody wants one near them, in case they say, something goes horribly wrong. Yet we also want society protected, and the guilty punished for their transgressions. So we build prisons farther and farther from the towns. Airports follow this same trend.

So what is the answer? There isn't one. Getting people to accept that the things they want for the benefits also come with some negatives is beyond unlikely to impossible.

In the end, we are doomed as a civilization, because we won't do anything that causes us personally, any difficulty.

The Liberal Argument for Gun Control

Liberals argue that only the Police should have "assault weapons" which in this case, actually are assault weapons because the police possess fully automatic rifles. Also Liberals argue that only police should have high capacity magazines, because the police are there to protect us.

First, who meets the criminal first? Criminals generally don't target police, and if they do then the cops go crazy to find the guy. Look at the case of Christopher Dorner. This was the largest manhunt in California history. There were plenty of people who murdered far more people than Christopher Dorner, but they apparently did not deserve the largest manhunt in history. No, that was saved for someone who was targeting the police. In other words, when THEY are in danger, there is no limit to the effort to get the baddie, even burning a house down with him in it ala old west style vengeance.

The beltway sniper did not garner as extensive a manhunt because the criminal did not target police. I know the argument, if the baddie will go after cops, there's no telling what he will do to the civilian population. Really? Dorner didn't kill everyone he came across, he targeted police and those family members associated with the cops. If I was in the area, I'd feel just safe as could be, unless one of the cops shot me, because Dorner didn't want me dead, he wanted the boys in blue dead. Dorner took civilians hostage, and held them. He did not kill them, he was going after what he perceived to be the real bad guys, the cops. It would have been far easier for him to kill the couple he took hostage. It would have been far safer for him. They were not his enemy, but they didn't understand that.

That aside, generally speaking, criminals don't target cops, which probably explains why cops don't get too excited about most crimes against you and your family. So the cops need high capacity magazines, because they deal with criminals, but the criminals aren't going after cops, so if it is the presence of criminals, and the threat from criminals that is the justification, then don't we need high capacity magazines to protect ourselves?

Police officers die every year. In 2011, the last year for which I could find numbers. There were 83,000 murders in the united states. A tiny fraction of those were police officers. Yet we the victim set, are told that we can't do anything to protect ourselves, besides the police will protect us. We've all seen the cars, with the motto on the side. "To protect and serve" which is a lie, according to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

So the law of the land is that the cops have no constitutional duty to protect you, your family, or anyone. As far as the courts are concerned, you're on your own, but you should not, according to the liberals, have any means to protect yourself.

So what does Assault Rifles, defined as fully automatic rifles in the hands of government agents do to protect you? Nothing much really, because what it does do is give them a cornered market, and make you even more of a victim.

No, I don't think I'll support this gun control, or what they're calling it now, Common Sense Gun Regulations. Pfui. When they have a duty to protect me, then I'll consider it. Until then, no thanks.

Hit Counter