• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why progressives are against private firearm ownership

Once AI and robots replace 97% of human labor communism will become feasible.

Why do you believe this when there is no evidence to support it?

Automation has been going on for thousands of years, and the number of jobs has only gone up.
 
Why do you believe this when there is no evidence to support it?

Automation has been going on for thousands of years, and the number of jobs has only gone up.

Before now tools still needed humans to operate. What we are seeing for the first time is the beginning of a process that will result in our tools outgrowing us and functioning independently of us. That has never happened before and it will change the world.
 
No. They aren't kidding. Progressives want the United States to have less gun violence, like they do in Japan and Switzerland.

Some, like myself, would like to see us go the Switzerland route where the citizen's militia is well-regulated (as stipulated in the actual text of the second amendment).

Others think that the right will never come to the table on any kind of gun regulation, and that the only solution is to repeal the second amendment altogether.

And of course, there is a spectrum of progressive thought betwixt the two.
The militia in Switzerland have no ammo at home for their guns
 
The yearning to be free is more than philosophical, it is an evolutionary imperative. The struggle to provide for ourselves and our families is the survival instinct. Communists like Harris and Xiden deny human nature to push their collectivist views. Communism and socialism cannot succeed as they are contrary to the human condition. Violence and force are the only way that leftists can impose their agenda, hence an armed populace is a significant danger to the Communists.

Communists like Harris demand that people work to their own injury rather than their own survival. Only through coercion will humans do so. Yes, the appeal to greed will motivate the stupid in the short term, but in short order the nature of the con becomes apparent and the slaves revolt. Communism depends on the rulers possessing superior force of arms to oppress the masses. Eventually every tyranny fails, as Communism ever shall.

I thought you said you read Marx.

Which specific bills did Senator Harris sponsor that would abolish private property?
 
Once AI and robots replace 97% of human labor communism will become feasible.

Marx said the same of mechanization but it never happened. I mentioned to another that "Capital Vol. 1" is an important read, but as much for what Marx got wrong as for what he got right. He though industrialization would end physical labor, it didn't - nor did it under automation, nor in the digital age, nor will it with AI. My robot vacuums my house, but I have to run around moving things and unjamming paper or other things in order for the robot to function.

Labor changes, it doesn't disappear.

Marxism is the pipe dream of a life of luxury without effort. It will never happen.

Instead all we will have is socialism, the resurgent feudal system where the state (king) is owner of all and distributes as the state sees fit. The free market has created abundance, when the Marxists end the free market, the abundance will vanish as it did in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. and the proles will starve. Maduro and his thugs have never missed a meal, nor will Harris and her thugs. Socialism is the unraveling of the enlightenment, the mad dash back into a dark age of the ruling elite and the impoverished masses.
 
I thought you said you read Marx.

I found Rothbard to be far more convincing.

Which specific bills did Senator Harris sponsor that would abolish private property?

A straw man is a logical fallacy.

What are we at with WIllie Brown's little love muffin?

  1. "Free" health care for anyone physically in the country.
  2. "Free" college and forgiveness of all student debt.
  3. Guaranteed basic income for anyone physically in the country.
  4. Moratorium on evictions
  5. Green Raw Deal
 
I found Rothbard to be far more convincing.

That's fine. Even those who don't agree with Rothbard can recognize that he was an adherent of Austrian economics rather than Keynesian economics. I don't have to pretend that Rothbard was a Communist in order to disagree with him.

A straw man is a logical fallacy.

What are we at with WIllie Brown's little love muffin?

  1. "Free" health care for anyone physically in the country.
  2. "Free" college and forgiveness of all student debt.
  3. Guaranteed basic income for anyone physically in the country.
  4. Moratorium on evictions
  5. Green Raw Deal

It isn't a straw man. You claim that Harris is a Communist. That is exactly the same as claiming that she has sought to abolish private property. That is the very definition of Communism:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

So again, which specific bills did Senator Harris sponsor that would abolish private property?
 
Before now tools still needed humans to operate. What we are seeing for the first time is the beginning of a process that will result in our tools outgrowing us and functioning independently of us. That has never happened before and it will change the world.

In the old days to heat your home you had to go out and chop wood and bring it in, light the stove or fireplace, and keep feeding it wood throughout the day.

Today the heating system in your home is completely automated. The stat calls for heat, the boiler fires up and heats the water, the circulator pumps the hot water through the radiators and your house gets warm. When the water in the boiler gets to about 190 degrees, the boiler automatically shuts down. When the house reaches a certain temperature, the stat shuts off the circulator and the boiler. The system is completely automated, yet there are thousands and thousands of jobs still required to build new systems and to maintain and repair existing heating systems. Automating the heating of your home created several orders of magnitude more jobs compared to when it was done manually.

That's one example out of thousands, if not millions of others. There are no tools or machines that do not require humans. If you disagree, name some of them.
 
In the old days to heat your home you had to go out and chop wood and bring it in, light the stove or fireplace, and keep feeding it wood throughout the day.

Today the heating system in your home is completely automated. The stat calls for heat, the boiler fires up and heats the water, the circulator pumps the hot water through the radiators and your house gets warm. When the water in the boiler gets to about 190 degrees, the boiler automatically shuts down. When the house reaches a certain temperature, the stat shuts off the circulator and the boiler. The system is completely automated, yet there are thousands and thousands of jobs still required to build new systems and to maintain and repair existing heating systems. Automating the heating of your home created several orders of magnitude more jobs compared to when it was done manually.

That's one example out of thousands, if not millions of others. There are no tools or machines that do not require humans. If you disagree, name some of them.

We are on the verge of creating tools that can think and operate independently. In the future new cutting edge labor demands will be filled by AI and robots, not humans. We are teaching computers to do what we do better than we can do it. We are replacing ourselves.
 
That's fine. Even those who don't agree with Rothbard can recognize that he was an adherent of Austrian economics rather than Keynesian economics. I don't have to pretend that Rothbard was a Communist in order to disagree with him.



It isn't a straw man. You claim that Harris is a Communist. That is exactly the same as claiming that she has sought to abolish private property. That is the very definition of Communism:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

So again, which specific bills did Senator Harris sponsor that would abolish private property?

You were presented evidence of her collectivist goals.

Even Lenin balked at abolishing private property on day one, yet few would deny that Vlad was the epitome of Marxism.
 
The leftist position against private ownership of firearms comes directly from their core values:

1. Progressives are collectivists, they reject individualism. The modern progressive has no moral qualms about sacrificing individuals for the "common good".

For example, suppose a woman believes her crazy, jealous ex-boyfriend is likely to try to kill her. She goes out to buy a gun, but she lives in Commiefornia where the progressives there have instituted a 10 day waiting period. During the waiting period, the ex-boyfriend breaks into her place and strangles her to death with her own pantyhose. Leftists will view her murder as a necessary sacrifrice for the common good.

2. Progressives are socialists, they want the state to control production and distribution of guns, hence the mountain of regulations pertaining to which guns may be sold and to whom and under what circumstances. Two hundred years ago justice John Marshall said "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", which is of course true. But the power to regulate also grants the rotten government the power to destroy.

3. Finally, progressivism is synonymous with statism. They reject the very idea of private self defense, they want you dependent on the government for protection (and everything else for that matter).

But what about liberal gun owners, don't they exist? Sure, they exist. Most of them are environmentalists as well, while they drive around in their gas guzzling SUVs and have a personal consumption expenditure of over 40k per year. Progressive values are to be imposed on other people, not themselves. That's why after they ruin a particular state, they move out of it, to go ruin another.

Cool story...

So, I'm interested in your thoughts around someone like me: definitely progressive, and a shooting enthusiast. How does that fit into your assumptions?
 
We are on the verge of creating tools that can think and operate independently. In the future new cutting edge labor demands will be filled by AI and robots, not humans. We are teaching computers to do what we do better than we can do it. We are replacing ourselves.

Have you ever heard of the "Turing test?"

We are nowhere near creating tools that can think - much less think independently. Quite possibly we never will be.

 
Cool story...

So, I'm interested in your thoughts around someone like me: definitely progressive, and a shooting enthusiast. How does that fit into your assumptions?

Doesn't Canada prohibit the ownership of firearms by the Proles?

 
You were presented evidence of her collectivist goals.

Even Lenin balked at abolishing private property on day one, yet few would deny that Vlad was the epitome of Marxism.

I get that you think Rothbard's rejection of the scientific method is cool, and that Keynesian economics is evil.

But you could at least be honest that it is Keynesian Capitalism you are arguing against, rather than Marxist Communism.

I have already shown from the works of Marx himself that abolition of private property is the defining feature of Communism.

Even Lenin balked at abolishing private property on day one, yet few would deny that Vlad was the epitome of Marxism.

Everyone with any intellectual integrity would deny that.

It should be self evident that Karl Marx was the epitome of Marxism.

Lenin had his own ism. Its called Leninism.
 
Have you ever heard of the "Turing test?"

We are nowhere near creating tools that can think - much less think independently. Quite possibly we never will be.


You can choose to underestimate technology and its growth potential like every generation before you if you'd like. Technology is advancing at a multiplicative rate. That means it is getting better faster and faster. We probably won't see all of the jobs dry up in the next century but we will definitely be seeing the beginnings of it.
 
I get that you think Rothbard's rejection of the scientific method is cool, and that Keynesian economics is evil.

But you could at least be honest that it is Keynesian Capitalism you are arguing against, rather than Marxist Communism.

I have already shown from the works of Marx himself that abolition of private property is the defining feature of Communism.



Everyone with any intellectual integrity would deny that.

It should be self evident that Karl Marx was the epitome of Marxism.

Lenin had his own ism. Its called Leninism.

Ah, red herrings to go along with the Straw Man fallacies.

I indeed see Marxian economics as evil, and with 250 million peace time murders by the Marxists, it's really a bit hard to deny.

Those who claim a condemnation of Marxism is calling "Keynes evil" are either dishonest, ignorant, or both. Last I checked "The General Theory" didn't advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat or dissolution of private property.

Tell you what, let's hang a hat on your Straw Man; was the Bolshevik revolution of Vladimir Lenin Marxist?

Yes, or no?
 
You can choose to underestimate technology and its growth potential like every generation before you if you'd like. Technology is advancing at a multiplicative rate. That means it is getting better faster and faster. We probably won't see all of the jobs dry up in the next century but we will definitely be seeing the beginnings of it.


That is evasion.

Artificial Intelligence still depends on response tables using Bayesian weighting to determine an appropriate response to a query. Learning theory is nothing more than automated refinement of response parameters. Processing power and storage retrieval speed has increased at an enormous rate, providing the illusion of massive breakthroughs in AI - but the underlying principles are the same as they were in the 1960. When a democrats says "Alexa, play "Cuties" on Netflix" it is still a matter of keyword searches and cross platform SQL queries in response tables. It's bloody fast, but the base tech is still the same.

When I was young, computers were going to "take over" and put us all out of work. Instead they tripled the number of jobs available to people. Machine learning is useful technology that will improve life across the board - but it's not going to end working - no matter how much the lazy Marxist slobs dream that it will.
 
That is evasion.

Artificial Intelligence still depends on response tables using Bayesian weighting to determine an appropriate response to a query. Learning theory is nothing more than automated refinement of response parameters. Processing power and storage retrieval speed has increased at an enormous rate, providing the illusion of massive breakthroughs in AI - but the underlying principles are the same as they were in the 1960. When a democrats says "Alexa, play "Cuties" on Netflix" it is still a matter of keyword searches and cross platform SQL queries in response tables. It's bloody fast, but the base tech is still the same.

When I was young, computers were going to "take over" and put us all out of work. Instead they tripled the number of jobs available to people. Machine learning is useful technology that will improve life across the board - but it's not going to end working - no matter how much the lazy Marxist slobs dream that it will.

Obviously there are things that we don't have the means to do. That doesn't mean it will stay that way.
 
Those who claim a condemnation of Marxism is calling "Keynes evil" are either dishonest, ignorant, or both. Last I checked "The General Theory" didn't advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat or dissolution of private property.

Thats my whole point. Keynes wasn't talking about dissolution of private property, and neither are you. All the complaints you level against Harris are examples of Keynesian stimuli for a capitalist economy, not Marxism.

Most folks I tend to think are just making an honest mistake when they conflate all government spending with Marxism.

If you have studied Marx, Rothbard and Keynes, I can only assume you are willfully spreading misinformation when you do so.

The defining feature of Marxism is the abolition of private property. If Senator Harris is a Marxist, then show us where she sponsored a bill to abolish private property.
 
Thats my whole point. Keynes wasn't talking about dissolution of private property, and neither are you. All the complaints you level against Harris are examples of Keynesian stimuli for a capitalist economy, not Marxism.

Most folks I tend to think are just making an honest mistake when they conflate all government spending with Marxism.

If you have studied Marx, Rothbard and Keynes, I can only assume you are willfully spreading misinformation when you do so.

The defining feature of Marxism is the abolition of private property. If Senator Harris is a Marxist, then show us where she sponsored a bill to abolish private property.

I didn't bring up Keynes nor government spending per se, you are merely building a Straw Man argument, yet again.

Harris has advocated collectivism through;

  1. "Free" health care for anyone physically in the country.
  2. "Free" college and forgiveness of all student debt.
  3. Guaranteed basic income for anyone physically in the country.
  4. Moratorium on evictions
  5. Green Raw Deal
 
I didn't bring up Keynes nor government spending per se, you are merely building a Straw Man argument, yet again.

Harris has advocated collectivism through;

  1. "Free" health care for anyone physically in the country.
  2. "Free" college and forgiveness of all student debt.
  3. Guaranteed basic income for anyone physically in the country.
  4. Moratorium on evictions
  5. Green Raw Deal

As I am sure you are aware, collectivism is not the same as Marxism. As you must also be aware, all of your examples of 'collectivism' are just government expenditures within a capitalist framework.
 
Back
Top Bottom