Thread: Capitalism Vs Socialism

to the_intrepid:
Extract from European Commission's document regarding the budget in Europe

The financing of the Union
The European Union is financed
mainly by resources made available
to it by the Member States, to which
it is legally entitled and which are
known as its ‘own resources’. The level
of own resources is fixed in a Council
decision adopted unanimously and
ratified by the national parliaments.
Over the period 2000–06, own
resources may not exceed 1.27 % of
the European Union’s gross national
product. Total budget revenue is
determined each year as a function
of the total expenditure decided by
the budgetary authority (Parliament
and Council), in strict conformity
with the principle of balance, i.e. revenue
must be equal to expenditure,
and the budget must not show a
deficit.
The budget of the European Union: how is your money spent?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Also, in the USSR, you didn't really 'own your house' and could be evicted at anytime if they found you to be not productive enough -- or if you made the slightest complaint. That's at the minimum. Many were sent to prisons in Siberia.

I wonder for how long have you lived in USSR and what do you know about life in USSR?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The USSR was governed by 15 unelected commissars.

OK, that's the answer... Knowledge leaves far to be desired.

Capitalism and Socialism are both systems of national prosperity, and where you have that, you have a wide open door to tyranny and/or domestic abuse of citizens, and it's only a matter of time before someone will take advantage of it.
The only political systems that do not involve such things are systems of balance.
Socialism is much faster and more affective in the above crimes then Capitalism, but capitalism is harder to retaliate against and their is no defense against it's uprise in the most well balenced nation/s.
Evil will alwayse find a way.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Capitalism and Socialism are both systems of national prosperity, and where you have that, you have a wide open door to tyranny and/or domestic abuse of citizens, and it's only a matter of time before someone will take advantage of it.
The only political systems that do not involve such things are systems of balance.
Socialism is much faster and more affective in the above crimes then Capitalism, but capitalism is harder to retaliate against and their is no defense against it's uprise in the most well balenced nation/s.
Evil will alwayse find a way.

Encouraging thoughts you have there. So what, according to you, is the best system to have. Liberalism?
I must say that most societies in the west world are based on a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, and I could without a doubt call some of them functioning. Maybe I

I have, within the last 4 months 'started' learning ,studying,
and observing the Russian language. Always had the basic
impression of the USSR; a group of bureaucrats
running a legalized slave-state.
But now(albeit very late), I see where the 'union' did,
at the least(and probably only) in outward appearance -
managed to keep the 'peace' in places such as Yugoslavia
or Chechnia . Of course, their methods are not being
discussed. I have no knowledge of the conditions to talk
about them.
IMO the USA is nothing more than a bully in present times...
our government is truly corrupt. It's all about military...
and you never ever heard so many people groan as when
former President Clinton reduced the military
from its prominent first-priority down to -IMO
exactly what it should be; not the most important entity.
I suppose some would argue that it was the downfall .
But, on the other hand, our government is getting softer.
Maybe it has to??? Okay, enough rambling, it is lunch time .

I think the U.S. military is still too large. If the military wasn't so large, we would not be prone to being the bullies that we've become (as unfortunate as it is!).

I would support the reduction of the U.S. Armed Forces to a strong Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps, and only small contingents of Army Special Forces and Air Force pilots and aircraft developers. I don't like the idea of having American troops stationed abroad either. It's bad for diplomacy and world view. Americans don't like the idea of German or Japanese troops being stationed on U.S. soil, so why insist upon having bases there? I don't like it.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm quite the libertarian-capiitalist. However, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I think government is necessary, but only a minimum government at that. I think there should only be enough government for a smaller and more efficient military, and enough police forces to protect the private property of citizens. Having public (government paid for and regulated) healthcare is not nearly as good as private healthcare, and public healthcare costs more (the U.S., contrary to common opinion, does not have private healthcare in the true sense).

44 Canon does bring up a good point, Evil will always find a way. However, in a Socialist society, or even in a Mixed-Society, the abuse of power is quite great. The argument for capitalism, is that it is very difficult for an abusive or harmful monopoly to be formed without the intervention of the state (which is the monopoly in Socialist and most Mixed-Societal systems!).

The single greatest polluter in the United States (and maybe the world?) is the United States military. In a Socialist or Mixed-Market society, the government is rarely punished because it can only answer to itself. In a capitalist society, all businessmen are accountable for their actions by both the law and the people (the market).

Alex_Ivanov,
About the USSR and the unelected commisars, I read that in a comment by Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic. I read about life within the USSR through Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn and Ayn Rand. There are also a few most anonymous online resources with insights into life in the Soviet Union.

I think the 15th unelected commissar statement is directed more towards governing of the so-called satellite countries, and not Russia herself. I think the comparison drawn between how that worked in the USSR and in the EU is because of EU bureaucrats are getting positions governing political and economic issues of other nations, of there own--and not necessarily to the vote of the respected citizens of whatever particular nation is in question.

the_intrepid, very good ideas. What you described is the way this country should be.
I am a Libertarian myself ( more of the Jesse Ventura, Charlie Condon type.

[quote]Encouraging thoughts you have there. So what, according to you, is the best system to have. Liberalism?
I must say that most societies in the west world are based on a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, and I could without a doubt call some of them functioning. Maybe I

Originally Posted by Lucas

If anyone is rich to pay a private system, go ahead.

You don't have to be rich to afford private health care in the United States or anywhere else where it is available, unless there is a government monopoly or extremely heavy government regulation in place.

You don’t say anything regarding the huge Deficit in the budget of USA. Why not?

The huge amount of deficit spending by the U.S. Government? Oh, I'm an outspoken critic of U.S. Government fiscal irresponsibility (which has been getting worse: now adays, "Conservative" Republicans spend like Liberal Democrtats. Take George Bush and George W. Bush. They were both Republicans, but both spent money like Liberals. I think George W. Bush spent more money than any Liberal in American politics since that lousy, good for nothing Franklin D. Roosevelt was in power, along with his other "New Deal" Presidents.) If you weren't talking about the huge amount of spending "in the red" done by government (not necessarily huge deficits, but spending way over budget), you might be talking about the Trade Deficit?

The Trade Deficit is largely a myth. To wit, just because we buy more from China than China buys from us, doesn't mean they are gaining wealth and we are losing wealth. To the contrary, when China gains wealth, China has to go other places to buy their goods, often from America or other countries. When these other countries gain wealth, they have to buy from somewhere, often America. You see how it works? Trade is really "as it should be", in balance.

Each European country’s budget is being breakdown according with its own priority. I prefer my government assigns these resources in Education or Health Care than in the Army as USA done. I don’t know the accurately number but not more the 5% of the National budget is being assigned to Europe Budget so is irrelevant.

Are you kidding???

No.

Do you thing 30.000 are a high number compare with 300 millions people? Let me tell you that thanks European Union countries as Ireland or Spain (no bigger that France or Germany) have been able to sell their products in Europe. During the last years Ireland has been growing about 7-8 % in its GPD; it has been called the European tiger. Nowadays, Spain has an unemployment rate nearest of 10% along with 22 millions of Active workforces, in the past the numbers were 20% unemployment and 18 millions of active workforces. The income per capita is both countries are near of the 90% of Europe average.

Ireland's success is often attributed to the European Union, as if Ireland would not be able to negotiate trade relations on its own. In order to pay for this "service", Ireland is now beginning to be charged hefty for what they were "graciously given" by the E.U. commissioners. "European tiger" is going to be slowing down significantly in the very near future (already is in some sectors).

Spain might be having a lower rate of unemployment now, but it does not mean that the E.U. is "creating jobs". This is largely an illusin -- that all governments like to play into. A government cannot "Create jobs", only steal them from the private sector. In the long run, the wasted money that was taken out of the market, and out of the hands of inventors and entrepreneurs, concludes in loss of wealth and progress, and an actual loss of jobs in the long run. In other words, the government might "create" 500,000 jobs this year, but the following year, or somewhere near down the road, people with related jobs are going to suffer because of the expense. In order to keep paying bills, employers are going to have to lay off or fire employees in large numbers. The jobs "created" by the government will still be touted by the Liberal Establish and by the Bureaucracy, but the creation of jobs is still not solving the problem. Unfortunately, government bureaucrats do not understand this, and the cycle continues.

Don’t hesitate that European Union (only economic union) has been very important for many reasons. I can understand America dislike that situation.

America is losing interest in Europe. Europeans continue to criticize America for being "unrefined" and "unEuropean", but continue to ask America for economic and military aid. Europeans, particularly the French and the British, love to claim America as the bully who is misguided. They'll talk about how America misuses its power, but then as soon as America's superpower status can be used to bolster French or British (or any other European) trade or socio-political presence in a given region, they're all for it.

Sooner or later, this cycle will end. It'll probably end in American military dominance waining (not because of the Euroepan Union, it's fanciful to seriously believe the countries and peoples of the E.U. could ever cooperate enough to challenge America in the long run). The reason American military dominance will wain, is because of American politicians (the merging between the Left-Democrats and the Right-Conservatives) are going to create quite the bullying nation. If the world thinks America is bad now, many more people will tremble at what they see if they keep trying to manipulate America into doing there bidding.

I fear not only for world stability, but also for my own personal freedoms as an American citizen. However, I've gone off topic far enough, so I'll just end this here.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I read about life within the USSR through Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn and Ayn Rand. There are also a few most anonymous online resources with insights into life in the Soviet Union.

This is your source? Well, it explains a lot. Both are true experts. Historians are tires already to point out all Solzhenitsyn's exagerrations, half-truths and lies. Rand emigrated in 1926, when she was around 20, and has never been to Russia again. Consider her books a science fiction, like "Martian chronicles".

I think the 15th unelected commissar statement is directed more towards governing of the so-called satellite countries, and not Russia herself.

In any case, it's TOO simplistic. Power stucture of USSR was quite complicated. Do you know man on what position was head of Soviet Union, for example? The same goes for satellites.

Originally Posted by Alex_Ivanov

This is your source? Well, it explains a lot. Both are true experts. Historians are tires already to point out all Solzhenitsyn's exagerrations, half-truths and lies. Rand emigrated in 1926, when she was around 20, and has never been to Russia again. Consider her books a science fiction, like "Martian chronicles".

I read somewhere online that Solzhenitsyn was rediculed quite a bit in Russia, and his writings became basically disregarded in Russia. By all means, if I am wrong on this account, enlighten me. Could you point me toward some books (with an English translation preferable) that give more "factual" information of life in the U.S.S.R.?

In any case, it's TOO simplistic. Power stucture of USSR was quite complicated.

Indeed, but I haven't the time, nor the energy, to compare every single bit of the U.S.S.R. (from top to bottom) to the European Union (from top to bottom).

Do you know man on what position was head of Soviet Union, for example? The same goes for satellites.

I'm not sure what you're saying... That the same man who was the head of the Soviet Union, was the head of each satellite? Didn't you just say it was more complicated than that?

[quote=the_intrepid]

Originally Posted by "Alex_Ivanov":1cxsoswd

Do you know man on what position was head of Soviet Union, for example? The same goes for satellites.

I'm not sure what you're saying... That the same man who was the head of the Soviet Union, was the head of each satellite? Didn't you just say it was more complicated than that?

[/quote:1cxsoswd]

Maybe it's just a wrong sequence of sentences. By "the same goes for satellites" I meant that their power systems and their relations with USSR were also quite complicated and didn't fit simplistic "comissars" schemes. But nevermind. I got your point about EU.

As for head of Soviet Union, his position wasn't called "General Secretary of Communist party of Soviet Union" (which usually comes to mind) but "Head of Presidium of Supreme Council" (I'm not sure in translation). Supreme Council was the main governing body, btw "sovet" is Russian word for council, soviet power is power of councils. There was a trend to appoint one person to all imaginable high positions in the state, though.

You don't have to be rich to afford private health care in the United States or anywhere else where it is available, unless there is a government monopoly or extremely heavy government regulation in place.

Very true. If we were following the constitutional tax standard ( only large corporations pay taxes ), the average income of the 16 year old working at McDonalds would be equilivant to about $130 per hour!
That means that a single days work at minimum wage would pay the rent and a trip to the dentist or physician would be paid for with pocket change.

America is losing interest in Europe. Europeans continue to criticize America for being "unrefined" and "unEuropean", but continue to ask America for economic and military aid. Europeans, particularly the French and the British, love to claim America as the bully who is misguided. They'll talk about how America misuses its power, but then as soon as America's superpower status can be used to bolster French or British (or any other European) trade or socio-political presence in a given region, they're all for it.

Sooner or later, this cycle will end. It'll probably end in American military dominance waining (not because of the Euroepan Union, it's fanciful to seriously believe the countries and peoples of the E.U. could ever cooperate enough to challenge America in the long run). The reason American military dominance will wain, is because of American politicians (the merging between the Left-Democrats and the Right-Conservatives) are going to create quite the bullying nation. If the world thinks America is bad now, many more people will tremble at what they see if they keep trying to manipulate America into doing there bidding.

I fear not only for world stability, but also for my own personal freedoms as an American citizen. However, I've gone off topic far enough, so I'll just end this here.

Very true, and if anyone thinks that the US military won't fire on American citizens, then try and remember what happened at the university protest back during Viet Nam, and they were probably much more hesitant to fire on American Citizens then then they are now.
I've encountered US soldiers who live for the day they are ordered to fire on liberals ( equilivant to the majority of Europeans.
I don't think it's going to happen though. American citizens have to many weapon stashes all over the country. The US can't wage a military campaign ALL OVER western Europe without first concurring American citizens and when they try to do that, it's going to be sniper galore nation wide. This is the REASON why we have the Right to keep and bare arms and why it's under attack.
It's amazing how Europeans will gripe at Americans about having gun rights ( have they forgotton the Nazis? ) yet, never stop to think about what's going to happen to them if America looses thoes rights.

If you really want to believe that America owes it's historical and continuing freedom from invasion to a bunch of gun-totting hick simpletons like yourself then I'm not going to try to stop you (as a European, contrary to what you seem to believe, I really couldn't give the smallest hoot what gun laws you have in the US, that's your business), but you may want to consider the fact that the UK has also not been invaded recently, in spite of having been targeted for invasion on several occassions. Each of those invasions have failed not because the population sleep with assault rifles under their beds, but because of pure geography, a tiny little 21-mile stretch of water called The Channel, and the logistics of getting across that. Now, which country do we know that is protected on two sides by the world's two biggest oceans and only has two land borders, one of which is shared with an entirely friendly nation (who don't have a land border with anyone else, so no possibility of any Maginot Line-style shennanigans), and the other of which is shared with a tiny poor little third-world country?

Once the penny has dropped (I accept this may take some considerable time), come back and I'll give you a big long list of countries who's populations have always been heavily armed and yet have still managed to find themslves oppressed by their own governments and reguarly invaded by others.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

It's amazing how Europeans will gripe at Americans about having gun rights ( have they forgotton the Nazis? ) yet, never stop to think about what's going to happen to them if America looses thoes rights.

What will happen to Europe without US? There will be less wars.

LOL! Europe had big cililization from thousands of years. The jopke of America exists 200 years and all thinks went worse from then.

[quote=Alex_Ivanov]

Originally Posted by "44 Canon":15qbwzex

It's amazing how Europeans will gripe at Americans about having gun rights ( have they forgotton the Nazis? ) yet, never stop to think about what's going to happen to them if America looses thoes rights.

What will happen to Europe without US? There will be less wars.[/quote:15qbwzex]

Are you going to blame the US for Europe's armed conflicts? That's just plain stupidity.

I suppose you're one of those types that likes to try to blame World War I and World War II on the United States? If so... well, I'll just shake my head and hope you're not one of those people.

Your claim also puts me into the delightful position of asking the question, how many European wars and armed conflicts were there since 1776, and how many before then?
Hmmm?

Why are so many Europeans in love with blaiming America for all of their problems? Centuries of bloodshed, oppression, and disaster, and it continues into our own time. Yet, America is the new scapegoat? I don't get it. Must be an America-envying thing.

Originally Posted by Aristodorus

LOL! Europe had big civilization from thousands of years. The jobke of America exists 200 years and all thinks went worse from then.

I'm not even sure if it's worth answering you. But I'll have pity, and respond.

Those thousands of years of "European civilization" had millions of instances of cruelty, oppression, and barbarism, from persecutions to witch burnings to continent spanning wars and depopulation due to disease and famine. From Ancient Greece through Hitler and Stalin, there has yet to be much of a wonderful "civilization"

Originally Posted by scotcher

If you really want to believe that America owes it's historical and continuing freedom from invasion to a bunch of gun-totting hick simpletons like yourself then I'm not going to try to stop you

Ouch. Gun-toting hick simpleton. You're such a tool. You should learn something about the "gun-toting hick simpletons" defeating the British in land battles. You should also learn about their Naval equivalents, often humbling the British Fleet [the most expansive and most powerful in the world at the time].

Now if you want to talk about continuing freedom. I chalk that one up to the most powerful Navy in the world [capable of completely humbling whatever the European Union, Russia, or China has to offer these days]. But certainly 80-90,000,000 private guns being owned has something to do with it. It also prevents government from getting too greedy, and stripping us of our Natural Rights.

For most of our history, this country has been defended by "gun toting-hick simpletons".

(as a European, contrary to what you seem to believe, I really couldn't give the smallest hoot what gun laws you have in the US, that's your business), but you may want to consider the fact that the UK has also not been invaded recently, in spite of having been targeted for invasion on several occassions.

In these days, who would actually want to invade and capture the United Kingdom? I certainly find nothing worth going there for.

Each of those invasions have failed not because the population sleep with assault rifles under their beds, but because of pure geography, a tiny little 21-mile stretch of water called The Channel, and the logistics of getting across that. Now, which country do we know that is protected on two sides by the world's two biggest oceans and only has two land borders, one of which is shared with an entirely friendly nation (who don't have a land border with anyone else, so no possibility of any Maginot Line-style shennanigans), and the other of which is shared with a tiny poor little third-world country?

I don't think you get it. For island nations, and for nations whose only enemies are from afar, a Navy is all you really need to defend your nation. This is part of the reason why the U.S. Constitution did not want to permit a large standing Army during peacetime, and only wanted a Navy. It is the most efficient way of defending yourself. Plus, it already had an armed population equivalent to being much larger of most of the armies in the world.

Don't overlook 90,000,000 armed civilians. Oceans and Navies kept us safe, but arms have a hand in prevention as well.

Once the penny has dropped (I accept this may take some considerable time), come back and I'll give you a big long list of countries who's populations have always been heavily armed and yet have still managed to find themslves oppressed by their own governments and reguarly invaded by others.

I would like to know this long list of countries whose populations have always been heavily armed and yet were oppressed. I'm not talking about having slightly high taxes, I'm talking real oppression here -- disregard for its citizenry's Natural Rights.

Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China... the greatest tyrannies in history have deprived their people of arms. Or you can try to argue that those travesties didn't happen.

[I suspect this is going to be one of those instances where somebody attacked America, and an American or two defended, and then the (usually European) aggressors use the counter-argument as a way of bolstering the notion that Americans like to ignorant insult Europe. I'd like to point out to the spectators that this isn't what's happening here. Here we have a case of some Europeans who want to attack America, and then try to use half assed logic and poor understanding of history to prove America's supposed inferiority to Europe.

Of course, they're also going to ignore that America was formed by Europeans, and has inherited European ideals -- and usually the best of them.]

Originally Posted by scotcher

If you really want to believe that America owes it's historical and continuing freedom from invasion to a bunch of gun-totting hick simpletons like yourself then I'm not going to try to stop you (as a European, contrary to what you seem to believe, I really couldn't give the smallest hoot what gun laws you have in the US, that's your business), but you may want to consider the fact that the UK has also not been invaded recently, in spite of having been targeted for invasion on several occassions. Each of those invasions have failed not because the population sleep with assault rifles under their beds, but because of pure geography, a tiny little 21-mile stretch of water called The Channel, and the logistics of getting across that.

Ignorance of his own country's history.

England would not exist as it does today without the successful invasian of William the Conquerer. You remember, the Duke of Normandy?

Now continuing to look into England's past, we see Danish and Viking invasions, two Roman invasians, and D-Day (although this invasion was going in the opposite direction of the channel.)


Also, scotcher, I have to ask.. no, I have to insist. Do you think it is easy to invade and conquer the whole of mainland Europe, as opposed to some relatively tiny island nation? If so, why?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

[capable of completely humbling whatever the European Union, Russia, or China has to offer these days]

Very useful after your country is glass. No, really very useful.

For most of our history, this country has been defended by "gun toting-hick simpletons".

Pearl Harbor. Midway. The Ardennes. Krushyov & Missiles Inc. Ring a bell?

I don't think you get it. For island nations, and for nations whose only enemies are from afar, a Navy is all you really need to defend your nation.

You should have told that to Sir Winston Churchill back in 1940. I bet he was wondering what his island nation had a real lack of to defend itself. Now we know, it was the Navy.

Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union

In these two countries it was not illegal to have weapons. In the European part of the USSR, literally arsenals of weapons were scattered all over it after the last war. Having those weapons was illegal but almost nobody would give a f*ck.

Of course, they're also going to ignore that America was formed by Europeans, and has inherited European ideals -- and usually the best of them.]

The tyrannies that you mentioned above were founded by European idealists, too.

Intrepid, why did you even start this thread? Your first post was decent enough. Your second long-winded post was misinformed and chauvinistic toward capitalism.

Socialism has nothing to do with bailing out corporations. That is either State Capitalism (which is exactly what the USSR was once Stalin came to power, dismantled the New Economic Plan and forced industrialization in a mere decade), or what I like to call "inverse fascism" (i.e, big business has corporatized government).

Now you're at the point where you're simply making personal insults (calling people "tools" and the like), when I've yet to find a cogent, factual argument put forth by you.

Your lack of understanding of socialist principles is not the problem - it's that you perceive yourself as having knowledge of them. What possible problem could there be with providing essential services, such as public transit, rent subsidies, living wages, telecommunications and health care to the citizenry? I can't think of any...other than getting in the way of fat bourgeoisie greed-mongers (your boys in Enron and Tyco's head, Kozlowski).

Capitalism works for some people (read: exploiter class), but does not work for the vast majority of the world's peoples, myself included. I am proud to be working class - I work very hard for "decent' money (wages are horribly low in Florida), and I take pride in that.

But what pride can I take in being denied a human right, viz, health coverage? I'm not speaking of emergency care, which is actually undeniable (a nice gesture, but hardly the solution). If I get the flu, or need to go to the chiropractor, who pays for that? I do. Out of my meager earnings I pay rent, utilities, telecom fees, food, etc. So my back hurts, and I don't go, because it's unaffordable! How is this justice?

The point I'm trying to make here is that I am not some high school kid, or a college student (at least not a full time student - I do attend college, however) who thinks "Soviets were neat" and decided to call myself a socialist or, on the flip side, some insulated bourgeois suburban kid whose Mommy and Daddy have always paid for everything, has delusions of "mad cash", and think I'll be a billionaire some day.

This is the bottom line, and it is what I seek - to be comfortable and happy. That's what real socialism can provide to the masses; comfort, essential services, and work for the sake of work, not to scrimp by on a poverty-line wage unable to visit a non-emergency health care facility.

A dose of the real world would do you good!

Ouch. Gun-toting hick simpleton. You're such a tool. You should learn something about the "gun-toting hick simpletons" defeating the British in land battles. You should also learn about their Naval equivalents, often humbling the British Fleet [the most expansive and most powerful in the world at the time].

I never had a go America, it's Navy, it's history, or it's culture, I simply had a go at the absurd notion that America has never been invaded just because it's citizens are armed, and that us Europeans are somehow poorer for having (and wanting) gun-free societies, being peddled by a half-wit who treats any piece of information not as something to be evaluated on its own merits, but as something to be manipulated, simplified, and distilled down to a nice little absolute that it fits more easily with all the other absolutes (capitalism good/ socialism bad, conservatism good/ liberalism bad) in the world-view given to him by his society in return for his unquestioning loyalty and patriotism. I admit the 'hick simpletons' jibe was a little unnecessary, but since it was directed personally at 44_Cannon, and I am fairly certain it would stand up in any court, I am not going to apologise for it.

Now if you want to talk about continuing freedom. I chalk that one up to the most powerful Navy in the world [capable of completely humbling whatever the European Union, Russia, or China has to offer these days].

Can't (and didn't, and don't have any reason to) argue with that.

But certainly 80-90,000,000 private guns being owned has something to do with it. It also prevents government from getting too greedy, and stripping us of our Natural Rights.

Haha, and which rights, precisely, are you referring to that are unique to the USA?

In these days, who would actually want to invade and capture the United Kingdom? I certainly find nothing worth going there for.

You'll have to try harder than that if you want to hurt my feelings, I'm no more likely to take offence at an insult directed at 'my' country than at an insult directed at people with the same colour of eyes as me. You see, I wasn't made to swear allegiance to a flag every day at school, and I am entirely free from the affliction of indoctrinated nationalism that seems so prevalent amongst your own countrymen.

I don't think you get it. For island nations, and for nations whose only enemies are from afar, a Navy is all you really need to defend your nation. This is part of the reason why the U.S. Constitution did not want to permit a large standing Army during peacetime, and only wanted a Navy. It is the most efficient way of defending yourself. Plus, it already had an armed population equivalent to being much larger of most of the armies in the world.

Don't overlook 90,000,000 armed civilians. Oceans and Navies kept us safe, but arms have a hand in prevention as well.

Yeah, I think already answered that (since you already asked it, in almost exactly the same words)

I would like to know this long list of countries whose populations have always been heavily armed and yet were oppressed. I'm not talking about having slightly high taxes, I'm talking real oppression here -- disregard for its citizenry's Natural Rights.

Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China... the greatest tyrannies in history have deprived their people of arms. Or you can try to argue that those travesties didn't happen.

Deprived people of arms, my hoop. They had gun laws, but that doesn't mean there weren't large numbers of weapons sloshing around anyway. How about South-East Asia? Israel? Libya (hell, take your pick in Africa)? Do you think all the guns floating around in Iraq just now were legally-held or army-issue before the war?

Those guns may have made life more difficult for invading armies afterwards, but they didn't stop any invasion, and they can't stop oppression so long as the government in question has more guns.

[I suspect this is going to be one of those instances where somebody attacked America, and an American or two defended, and then the (usually European) aggressors use the counter-argument as a way of bolstering the notion that Americans like to ignorant insult Europe. I'd like to point out to the spectators that this isn't what's happening here. Here we have a case of some Europeans who want to attack America, and then try to use half assed logic and poor understanding of history to prove America's supposed inferiority to Europe.

Of course, they're also going to ignore that America was formed by Europeans, and has inherited European ideals -- and usually the best of them.]

I attribute my opinions only to me, not the country in which I happen to live and certainly not to an entire continent, and I, for one, didn't attack America, I attacked one utterly moronic opinion, that just so happened to have been expressed by an American.

The idea that the Europeans posting in the thread are somehow in cahoots with each other in a conspiracy to denigrate America is so spine-twistingly idiotic and small-minded that I can't barely even muster the contempt necessary to dismiss it properly.

For the record though, I have nothing against Americans, I just hate dickheads. The fact that they are so often synonymous is, I can assure you, a coincidence quite beyond my control, and I am always happy when I meet one of the many millions of exceptions who prove the rule.

Ignorance of his own country's history.

England would not exist as it does today without the successful invasian of William the Conquerer. You remember, the Duke of Normandy?

Now continuing to look into England's past, we see Danish and Viking invasions, two Roman invasians, and D-Day (although this invasion was going in the opposite direction of the channel.)

Err.. since we were discussing gun laws I didn't see much point in referring to any history farther back than the issue itself, but hey, if it will make you happy, and in the spirit of Trans-Atlantic friendship, I am certainly willing to concede that the Roman invasion of Britian probably would have faltered if Boudica's army had been armed with assault rifles.

Also, scotcher, I have to ask.. no, I have to insist. Do you think it is easy to invade and conquer the whole of mainland Europe, as opposed to some relatively tiny island nation? If so, why?

You can insist all you want dear, and I might even answer if you explain who has managed to invade and conquer the whole of Europe and what it has to do with gun-control legislation.

Not that I'm likely to be able to read it anyway, since I'm off abroad for a few weeks starting tomorrow (yay!), and I have a feeling the topic will have moved on by the time I get back.