List of "translated" names?

If anything John is a libertarian.

clancy688 wrote:

Daryl wrote: Unlike say another good friend, John Ringo who regards the T Party as near communist wimps.

(Well, actually not... I read his books after all... )

PeterZ wrote:If anything John is a libertarian.

clancy688 wrote: quote="Daryl" Unlike say another good friend, John Ringo who regards the T Party as near communist wimps. /quote



(Well, actually not... I read his books after all... )

And that would stop him from feeling that way about the Tea Party because...?

I also read his books (currently re-re-reading "Hymn").

Daryl wrote: Unlike say another good friend, John Ringo who regards the T Party as near communist wimps.

clancy688 wrote:


(Well, actually not... I read his books after all... )

PeterZ wrote:If anything John is a libertarian.

Keith_w wrote:
And that would stop him from feeling that way about the Tea Party because...?

I also read his books (currently re-re-reading "Hymn").

Not saying it does prevent him from thinking that about TEA Partyers. My contention was the description that John was a dogmatic conservative/right winger.

I suspect John is a social liberal and fiscal libertarian along the lines of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. That hardly screams dogmatically right winger as Daryl insinuated in his post.

I remember a line from his Council Wars books where one of the characters was like "If you found this nation of yours you gotta put a 2nd amendment in OR I WON'T PARTICIPATE!!!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!!" (I think he didn't even put forward reasons why it would be prudent... )

For a Eurowussie like me that's pretty much end of the line, it doesn't get any "righter" cause that's hardly possible. ^^

It all boils down to definitions. Gun ownership is a key element of liberty. If citizens can own guns, then governments do not have complete control over those citizens. Citizens retain the ability to defend themselves when other citizens choose to reject the social contract and commit crimes/threatens the lives of others. Western social contracts allow governments to sanction individuals for breaking the social contract with force. Those social contracts do not and cannot prevent citizens from rejecting its terms to commit crimes.

The libertarian then is the person who understands those limitations and advocates for more liberty for individuals to address what governments cannot.

The conservative is one who resists change and desires that society remains the same. Remains the same regardless of whether that society is free or liberal.

I have no idea how you eurowuissies view the world.

clancy688 wrote:I remember a line from his Council Wars books where one of the characters was like "If you found this nation of yours you gotta put a 2nd amendment in OR I WON'T PARTICIPATE!!!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!!" (I think he didn't even put forward reasons why it would be prudent... )

For a Eurowussie like me that's pretty much end of the line, it doesn't get any "righter" cause that's hardly possible. ^^

Basically, we eurowussies see the world through a lens where most people live in urban, not rural areas, often very crowded, where tempers can easily become high and where the likely result of everyone having guns is that citizens will be shot by other citizens. We have enough problems with knives; guns make it so much easier to kill people.

If you go into more rural areas, there's quite a high level of gun ownership - most of our mass shootings in the UK have taken place in rural areas. Rural people are more likely to need guns for work, or to hunt, or shoot pests.

While most eurowussies would recognise the theory of 'governments don't have complete control of armed citizens', our experience of citizens taking up arms against the government is not a happy one - in the UK it was 'The Troubles' - and other countries have experienced repressive governments who were quite happy to use tanks. Or outright, recent civil war.

So we simply don't have the idea that gun ownership is a key element of Liberty; to most Europeans it's a nonsense statement. How does a gun defend you against a tank? A gun is a tool, isn't it? Why would it have a political meaning? Why would I want unhappy citizens to have guns? So they can rebel against the government? So the current row in the UK between Remainers and Leaver's can include weapons??? We don't even have the death penalty for murder - why should I be allowed to administer a death penalty for trespass, or burglary, or even for punching me in the face?

Etcetera. Having lived in the US for a while, I do understand the guns =freedom idea. But I'd say that it very much comes out of a particular historical context, and people in other countries have different contexts.

PeterZ wrote:It all boils down to definitions. Gun ownership is a key element of liberty. If citizens can own guns, then governments do not have complete control over those citizens. Citizens retain the ability to defend themselves when other citizens choose to reject the social contract and commit crimes/threatens the lives of others. Western social contracts allow governments to sanction individuals for breaking the social contract with force. Those social contracts do not and cannot prevent citizens from rejecting its terms to commit crimes.

The libertarian then is the person who understands those limitations and advocates for more liberty for individuals to address what governments cannot.

The conservative is one who resists change and desires that society remains the same. Remains the same regardless of whether that society is free or liberal.

I have no idea how you eurowuissies view the world.

clancy688 wrote:I remember a line from his Council Wars books where one of the characters was like "If you found this nation of yours you gotta put a 2nd amendment in OR I WON'T PARTICIPATE!!!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!!" (I think he didn't even put forward reasons why it would be prudent... )

For a Eurowussie like me that's pretty much end of the line, it doesn't get any "righter" cause that's hardly possible. ^^

Bluesqueak wrote:Basically, we eurowussies see the world through a lens where most people live in urban, not rural areas, often very crowded, where tempers can easily become high and where the likely result of everyone having guns is that citizens will be shot by other citizens. We have enough problems with knives; guns make it so much easier to kill people.

If you go into more rural areas, there's quite a high level of gun ownership - most of our mass shootings in the UK have taken place in rural areas. Rural people are more likely to need guns for work, or to hunt, or shoot pests.

While most eurowussies would recognise the theory of 'governments don't have complete control of armed citizens', our experience of citizens taking up arms against the government is not a happy one - in the UK it was 'The Troubles' - and other countries have experienced repressive governments who were quite happy to use tanks. Or outright, recent civil war.

So we simply don't have the idea that gun ownership is a key element of Liberty; to most Europeans it's a nonsense statement. How does a gun defend you against a tank? A gun is a tool, isn't it? Why would it have a political meaning? Why would I want unhappy citizens to have guns? So they can rebel against the government? So the current row in the UK between Remainers and Leaver's can include weapons??? We don't even have the death penalty for murder - why should I be allowed to administer a death penalty for trespass, or burglary, or even for punching me in the face?

Etcetera. Having lived in the US for a while, I do understand the guns =freedom idea. But I'd say that it very much comes out of a particular historical context, and people in other countries have different contexts.

Thanks, this is much appreciated. Wasn't trying to argue or proseletize, just make a distinction between libertarian and conservative as it pertains to Mr. Ringo.

PeterZ wrote:It all boils down to definitions. Gun ownership is a key element of liberty. If citizens can own guns, then governments do not have complete control over those citizens. Citizens retain the ability to defend themselves when other citizens choose to reject the social contract and commit crimes/threatens the lives of others. Western social contracts allow governments to sanction individuals for breaking the social contract with force. Those social contracts do not and cannot prevent citizens from rejecting its terms to commit crimes.
]

One problem - its just a theory. Plausible, but just a theory, which isnt actually supported by facts.

The idea that "armed peoples could stop government from becoming tyrannical" is only a theoretical concept. After Russian Civil War there were literally millions guns among the Russian population. Does it bothered the Bolsheviks? Not a bit, because the majority of armed civilians were on their side, the rest were either apolytical or disorganized & leaderless, after Bolsheviks destroyed the White warlords. And when Bolsheviks ordered the civilians to get rid of their firearms, most of them enthusiastically supported that decision, and the rest were unable to do anything against it, despite being "armed men on the land". Their problem was, that there were far more "armed mens on the land" who supported Bolsheviks.

So basically, the whole idea of "armed civilians would stop the tyrants" is hardly workable. It works under STRANGE assumption, that dictatorial reign would be established (somehow) without at least initial mass support. Frankly, such situations are very uncommon, and even in that case the most common scenario is prolonged civil war, in which firearms became much less important than access to heavy military hardware. And in most cases, when tyrants came to power, they have at least initial support if the majority of population - so most of "armed mens" were on their side anyway.

Tgats why I found the idea of "If citizens can own guns, then governments do not have complete control over those citizens"... dubious at best.

Dilandu wrote:

PeterZ wrote:It all boils down to definitions. Gun ownership is a key element of liberty. If citizens can own guns, then governments do not have complete control over those citizens. Citizens retain the ability to defend themselves when other citizens choose to reject the social contract and commit crimes/threatens the lives of others. Western social contracts allow governments to sanction individuals for breaking the social contract with force. Those social contracts do not and cannot prevent citizens from rejecting its terms to commit crimes.
]

One problem - its just a theory. Plausible, but just a theory, which isnt actually supported by facts.

The idea that "armed peoples could stop government from becoming tyrannical" is only a theoretical concept. After Russian Civil War there were literally millions guns among the Russian population. Does it bothered the Bolsheviks? Not a bit, because the majority of armed civilians were on their side, the rest were either apolytical or disorganized & leaderless, after Bolsheviks destroyed the White warlords. And when Bolsheviks ordered the civilians to get rid of their firearms, most of them enthusiastically supported that decision, and the rest were unable to do anything against it, despite being "armed men on the land". Their problem was, that there were far more "armed mens on the land" who supported Bolsheviks.

So basically, the whole idea of "armed civilians would stop the tyrants" is hardly workable. It works under STRANGE assumption, that dictatorial reign would be established (somehow) without at least initial mass support. Frankly, such situations are very uncommon, and even in that case the most common scenario is prolonged civil war, in which firearms became much less important than access to heavy military hardware. And in most cases, when tyrants came to power, they have at least initial support if the majority of population - so most of "armed mens" were on their side anyway.

Tgats why I found the idea of "If citizens can own guns, then governments do not have complete control over those citizens"... dubious at best.

We are in agreement. Governments require some degree of popular support. The US fight for independence was a tad different. About one third of the populace wanted independence, one third didn't care and the last third wanted to remain with England. Under those circumstances, it helped to be armed wherever the British soldiers were not present to overwhelm the opposition. Also, the degree that the populace is armed reduces the percentage of the population that can effectively veto egregious governmental over reach. As you stated enough popular support will topple any government or keep in place the most tyrannical.

Even so, that argument is secondary to the core principle of self defense. Government can't stop everyone who wants break even the most popular laws. Retaining the most effective means to stop such people from harming us is a right of the US citizen. That the same right makes it more difficult for government to ignore the Constitution is a secondary goal.

The best guarantee of freedom is a stable governmemt that honors the rule of laws consented to and implemented on behalf of the citizenry.

The notion that as an individual I can protect my own turf and my freedom is a dangerous illusion. Even if I could protect my turf with my own gun, it certainly doesn't protect my right to go down the street unmolested.

Don

-