Guns vs crime in Brazil

[Cyrus]

"It's funny how leftists hate to be called leftists? I always wonder why."

I do not mind being called a leftist, a communist, an extra-terrestrial or a casino dealer, in any order. I have no time for others' labels because I know perfectly well what my beliefs are - although they are always susceptible to change!

What I tried to point out is that the word "Leftism" is usually not used in discussions of politics. It is more of a dismissive, all-inclusive, generic term than anything else. The word "Leftism", just like the word "communistic" (over which there was that long argument with the BruceZ!) are words that were used by the sheriffs in those midwestern town threated by Alien Communist Monsters in 50s drive-in movies.

[MMMMMM]

"I assume you probably meant communist/socialist."

Pretty much, and those who strongly lean in that direction even if they aren'ty official party members.

"I think there are a number of reasons (beyond the authoritarian, Leninist readings of Marx that pass for Marxism these days) that the worst human rights violations (in terms of sheer numbers) have so far been committed by socialist states. Some of them have to do with 'leftism' and some don't. I don't think we can attribute these brutal, inexcusable circumstances to Leftist ideologies, however; rather, those who have perpetrated them ceased to be 'socialists' or any other form of legitimate left-wing political types when they murdered their own people. Still, the vulnerability of left-wing revolutionary governments to these hacks is of great concern."

I believe we can attribute much of the brutality of communist regimes to Leftist ideology itself, in a peculiar way. Why? Because in order to implement communist ideology, overwhelming power and control must be given to centralized government. This inevitably leads to the problems mentioned.

The further to the left policies go, the greater central power is required to implement and enforce those policies. Socialism requires greater centralized power and control than USA-style capitalism, and Communism requires greater centralized power and control than Socialism.

Agreed, some of the fault for historical problems lies with certain individuals. Don't ignore the old saw, though: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While this platitude is an oversimplification, it is easy to see that corruption is a common attribute of humans and that vesting overweening power in certain positions will lead to abuses of power. Along similar lines, granting central governenmt too much power will create corruption, and those seeking power and the power to abuse power will be attracted to leadership positions in any overwhelmingly strong central government. Since Communism cannot exist without an overwhelmingly strong central authority, I believe that implementing Communist ideology inevitably leads to the sort of abuses mentioned. This is one of the hidden ways in which the ideology itself is fatally flawed.

"BTW, where do we put the Holocaust on this scale? In terms of sheer numbers it is not as successful as Stalinism when it comes to genocide, the motive was perhaps even more sinister."

Hitler turned out to be far less successful at mass murder than either Stalin or Mao. Agreed, the motive was twisted and sinister.


Check out The Museum Of Communism, if you wish:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...m/musframe.htm

[Cptkernow]

going to answer in more length when I get out of the hole I am presently in.

However I would jusy like to add to the conversation by pointing out that saying everyone who is leftist is a socialist is on a par with saying everyone who is rightist is a fascist.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky,

Lula may not have done much harm yet, but he is allied with Castro and Chavez and is himself a Marxist.

[MMMMMM]

"However I would jusy like to add to the conversation by pointing out that saying everyone who is leftist is a socialist is on a par with saying everyone who is rightist is a fascist."

I am not saying they are on a par; rather it is a sliding scale.

Good luck getting out of that hole. Remember, it is all one long climb, so don't be too fixated on short-term results. Just be a good climber.

[nicky g]

He used to call himself a Marxist; he may still do ( I didn't think so but I don't know). His policies are nothing like Marxist.

[CORed]

Well, if Brazil is trying to confiscate guns from its citezens, it must be a good idea.

Gun control is based an a fundamentally absurd assumption: If guns are illegal, criminals won't have them.

Now, I think making it illegal for citezens would have some benefit. "Crime of Passion" murders and sucides would probably show some decrease. Certainly there are other means than guns to kill yourself or your spouse, but most are not as effective, so the success rate on attempts would go down.

What will almost certainly not happen with gun control is that hardened criminals will be disarmed, making guns illegal will be just about as effective in disarming criminals as making drugs illegal has been in keeping them from using and selling drugs.

I don't think the first benefit is worth the cost of reducing the ability of the law-abiding citizen to defend himself against criminals, or if it becomes necessary, the government.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
The further to the left policies go, the greater central power is required to implement and enforce those policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a favorite argument among small-government conservatives, but the federal government has spent more and gotten more power under Republicans in the last few decades than Democrats. Surely the GOP isn't tending towards socialism? Surely they aren't planning mass murder and genocide?

Again, when you try to place the blame for this misuse of power on leftist ideology because it supposedly needs big government to work, I think you are subscribing to a narrow view of Marxism (though a generally accurate one as it has been implemented so far) and indeed of lesser forms of socialism and even so-called 'liberal' policies here in the states. There are numerous ideological forms of socialism or syndicalism (yes, I mean anarchists) that advocate social welfare but on a much more local scale. And, again, the myth of bloated social programs coming from the so-called 'left' in America (the left is not represented in either political party IMHO) is off base as well. Welfare accounts for a tiny percentage of government spending. We dump far more money into pork-barrel giveaways and wildly impropable defense scenarios.

'Big' government is something to be concerned about, I agree. But it is not solely a product of the left. It is a product of nationalism in general; modern states that implement large-scale economic policies, be they socialist or capitalist, must be 'strong states' (meaning big and centralized) in order to function.

This is why anarchists like myself think the nation-state has been a spectacular failure in many ways. (There, the secret is out).

NT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The further to the left policies go, the greater central power is required to implement and enforce those policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a favorite argument among small-government conservatives, but the federal government has spent more and gotten more power under Republicans in the last few decades than Democrats. Surely the GOP isn't tending towards socialism? Surely they aren't planning mass murder and genocide?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the federal gov't. has gotten more power in recent years under the GOP as well. That does not refute my point in the least. And yes, the GOP is indeed tending a bit towards socialism lately.

"Again, when you try to place the blame for this misuse of power on leftist ideology because it supposedly needs big government to work, I think you are subscribing to a narrow view of Marxism (though a generally accurate one as it has been implemented so far) and indeed of lesser forms of socialism and even so-called 'liberal' policies here in the states. There are numerous ideological forms of socialism or syndicalism (yes, I mean anarchists) that advocate social welfare but on a much more local scale."

The issue is whether (or to what extent) government is going to force people to contribute to social welfare issues. To do so requires investing more absolute power in government than I think is appropriate in a free society.

"And, again, the myth of bloated social programs coming from the so-called 'left' in America (the left is not represented in either political party IMHO) is off base as well. Welfare accounts for a tiny percentage of government spending. We dump far more money into pork-barrel giveaways and wildly impropable defense scenarios."

Correct, cut out ALL federal welfare programs and special interest subsidies. Both major parties are unconscionable and unaccountable in both regards.

"'Big' government is something to be concerned about, I agree. But it is not solely a product of the left. It is a product of nationalism in general; modern states that implement large-scale economic policies, be they socialist or capitalist, must be 'strong states' (meaning big and centralized) in order to function."

I don't disagree; my point is that Leftist policies inherently require big government to enforce those policies--which breeds its own slew of evils.

"This is why anarchists like myself think the nation-state has been a spectacular failure in many ways. (There, the secret is out)."

I think all that is needed is that the Federal government go back to the strictest interpretation of the U.S. Constitution . Government will then exist primarily to protect your rights to life, liberty and private property; and do little else except conduct necessary business such as doing business with foreign powers and providing for the common defense.

Would you have a big problem with such a limited government?

[MMMMMM]

Listen up, Cyrus.