Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

by **CaptainFritz28** » Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:58 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:53 am
Lol I expect no agreement on this but the US is more tyranny prone and crime ridden than gun free Canada. In no modern conflict will the US be invaded in a manner where Darryl and his friends at the gun club will be pushing back what would certainly be a nuclear armed adversary.

Yeah, when it comes to invasion from foreign adversary, it's a grand deterrent for conventional warfare but very little stops a nuke. Then again, getting nuked is kind of pointless to prepare against unless you want to go full-on fallout prepper mode, which then has little chance to work and chains you in anxiety to your home so you can get to your bunker in time... that's another matter entirely. But if we aren't talking about nuclear destruction, then I still hold that they're an effective deterrent.

On the matter of tyranny, I could say a few things about y'all's last Prime Minister and you would respond with some things about our last couple of Presidents, and we'd both make good points and both still disagree. America has somewhat of an armed populace, but not enough of a trained populace in my opinion.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:54 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:49 pm
It's certainly an interesting perspective to think that gun freedoms are so important that they justify compulsory national service — a very obvious and onerous intrusion by the state.

When you live in a mostly gun-free society you typically don't think about guns whatsoever. It's rather nice.

Even if I were to capitulate on all points here stated, removing guns in the current state of the United States would be worse than prohibition. Good citizens would comply, and those who wanted to use unregistered firearms for evil would find a way around the ban. This would lead to one of two options: A) the government breaks into the houses of everyone it remotely suspects to own a gun, violating the rights and privacy of many innocents and doing their usual inefficient and ineffective job, or B) the amount of gun violence shoots far higher than ever before as those still with firearms, already criminals, recognize that now there is very, very little stopping them from doing whatever they want.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:53 am

Lol I expect no agreement on this but the US is more tyranny prone and crime ridden than gun free Canada. In no modern conflict will the US be invaded in a manner where Darryl and his friends at the gun club will be pushing back what would certainly be a nuclear armed adversary.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:47 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:52 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:25 pm
To Bert's point, I really mean Texas when I refer to said freedoms. I'd rather be in most Canadian provinces than in California or New York. Bearing arms is the first that comes to mind.
Snip the rest but happy to acknowledge it, and thanks, Fritz, for being reasonable.

So, I'm sorry to hone in on this point, but it stands out to me.

Fritz:

How many guns do you own?

Why do you own them?

How many people have you shot?

How many times have you been fired at by another person who was trying to shoot you?

Obviously I live in a country with strict gun controls (that I agree with). I have never owned a gun, and I do not want one.

The answer to all of these questions is 0 (except the third, which answer is negated by the answer to the first). I am but a poor young college student.

Perhaps you find it unusual that I advocate for a freedom which I almost never exercise... to which I respond that I hope not for my current state of arms-bearing to continue as it is after I leave college. To answer the inevitable "why" that follows, my response is that I believe that an armed and trained populace is A) the best deterrent to overwhelming tyranny, B) quite a good deterrent to invasion, and C) conducive to a decrease in violent crime.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:52 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:25 pm
To Bert's point, I really mean Texas when I refer to said freedoms. I'd rather be in most Canadian provinces than in California or New York. Bearing arms is the first that comes to mind.

Snip the rest but happy to acknowledge it, and thanks, Fritz, for being reasonable.

So, I'm sorry to hone in on this point, but it stands out to me.

Fritz:

How many guns do you own?

Why do you own them?

How many people have you shot?

How many times have you been fired at by another person who was trying to shoot you?

Obviously I live in a country with strict gun controls (that I agree with). I have never owned a gun, and I do not want one.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:49 pm

It's certainly an interesting perspective to think that gun freedoms are so important that they justify compulsory national service — a very obvious and onerous intrusion by the state.

When you live in a mostly gun-free society you typically don't think about guns whatsoever. It's rather nice.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:28 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:08 pm
To be more balanced, I’d like to see Canada adopt a U.S.-style approach to free speech, along with their lower regulatory barriers for starting a business and their generally lower tax burden. While I think gun freedoms in the U.S. are mostly excessive, Canada goes too far in effectively criminalizing self-defense.

That said, I wouldn’t trade my Canadian freedoms for American ones wholesale—such a trade would ultimately make me feel less free overall.

This, barring the latter bit, is about what I mean. Except that when it comes to gun rights I would really prefer gun education to restrictions. The USA is probably too big for this to work, but Switzerland and Finland's systems of mandatory national service seem like a good idea. (And yes, I know that their civilian rights of bearing arms also differ from the US.)

by **CaptainFritz28** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:25 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 7:16 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 6:56 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:27 pm
According to most measures (such as human development index, average incomes, etc), Canada has a measurably higher standard of living than the United States, and they share a large land border with few physical barriers.
Canada cold. Warm here. Me stay here.

(Also, especially recently I've not seen anything that would make me want to move there, primarily due to economic policy and lack of certain freedoms.)
Which freedoms?

To Bert's point, I really mean Texas when I refer to said freedoms. I'd rather be in most Canadian provinces than in California or New York. Bearing arms is the first that comes to mind. When I wrote that, I think I was conflating Canada with many European regulations, because I was thinking freedom of speech and press, but now that I think about it more that's not a difference between us and our northern neighbors.

Really what I mean is that I'm satisfied with what I've got here, moreso than I feel I would sacrifice moving to Canada (taking into account the sacrifices that one makes when one moves).

Honestly, I wouldn't take much issue if I were forced to move to Canada, as there are some parts of it which I rather do like (I say I don't like the cold, but the Canadian wilderness certainly has its beauty). Who knows, maybe with a new election Canada's government will head in a better direction and I'll soon be saying I'd rather live there. As it is, my attachment to my homeland keeps me here, and my rights, while far from perfect, are much better than I could ask for anywhere else.

But yeah, I'll admit that I realize now that I wasn't really thinking of Canadian rights so much as European politics (or what I know of them) when I wrote that. I like Canada quite a lot.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:08 pm

To be more balanced, I’d like to see Canada adopt a U.S.-style approach to free speech, along with their lower regulatory barriers for starting a business and their generally lower tax burden. While I think gun freedoms in the U.S. are mostly excessive, Canada goes too far in effectively criminalizing self-defense.

That said, I wouldn’t trade my Canadian freedoms for American ones wholesale—such a trade would ultimately make me feel less free overall.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:57 pm

It's a very American take to think they're freer than Canadians.

The reality is that regional variations matter more than national differences - an Albertan faces lower taxes and regulations than a Californian.

Moreover, many so-called “restrictions” on Canadians are often policies that many of us feel actually enhance our freedom in practice:

I’m obliged to pay taxes for healthcare, but in return my healthcare isn’t tied to my job. That makes a huge practical difference in how easily I can switch jobs, move cities, go back to school, etc.

I can take significant parental leave without endangering my employment.

I can smoke a joint anywhere in Canada. That remains a crime in most places in America.

I can travel freely to Cuba.

I have the right to die with dignity - an option that only exists in ~10 states.

I can't carry a handgun in the grocery store. In return, I also don't need to worry about other people having a handgun in the grocery store.

Our legal system has much better guardrails to prevent frivolous lawsuits, which is an expansion of freedom for honest people. Canada doesn't allow pre-trial detentions, which in practice allow the state to imprison poor folks who haven't been convicted of a crime. We incarcerate fewer people per capita. The state cannot use the death penalty.

Our system of government offer much greater choice to voters and, simultaneously, produces governments that are much less vulnerable to gridlock. Rules about campaign financing are much better enforced.

Canadians are freer than most Americans in many of the ways that matter most. Some Americans seem to fetishize a childish sense of "freedom" that, in their daily life, actually limits their options.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 7:16 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 6:56 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:27 pm
According to most measures (such as human development index, average incomes, etc), Canada has a measurably higher standard of living than the United States, and they share a large land border with few physical barriers.
Canada cold. Warm here. Me stay here.

(Also, especially recently I've not seen anything that would make me want to move there, primarily due to economic policy and lack of certain freedoms.)

Which freedoms?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 7:15 pm

I continue to think that looking at the reasons people attempt to migrate, and to seek to solve those problems as a society, would be the better and more humane thing to do.

You support a side that puts up walls, fosters fear of the alien, and takes the negative approach every time.

That isn't going to change.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 6:56 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:27 pm
According to most measures (such as human development index, average incomes, etc), Canada has a measurably higher standard of living than the United States, and they share a large land border with few physical barriers.

Canada cold. Warm here. Me stay here.

(Also, especially recently I've not seen anything that would make me want to move there, primarily due to economic policy and lack of certain freedoms.)

by **Octavious** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 6:49 pm

Fair enough, we all make mistakes. I have to admit being a bit surprised by this one, though. For someone who has such a keen eye for north American politics not having an instinctive feel for the USA's advantage in typical salaries is remarkable. Very much a not knowing the price of a pint of milk moment.

American foreign policy may well play a part in the reasons some people decide to leave their country (my feel is that it's a less important factor than you perceive it to be, and blaming the US for immigration from Ely Salvador because they didn’t give them loads of money seems beyond ludicrous.

But what seems beyond obvious is that not one of them would go anywhere near the USA if it wasn't for the fact it has a huge economy and high quality of life. If the USA had a standard of living typical of Latin America then the number of migrants trying to move there would fall off a cliff.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:13 pm

Forgive me Oct, you're right, I was mistaken. I was looking at a source which confused Candian dollars and US dollars. Canada is ahead on HDI, but that's not as strong an example as I thought it was.

Still, I maintain that the point is why people are leaving their homes and making dangerous journeys, uprooting their whole lives. I contend that US foreign policy since the 1950s to the recent present has created large numbers of migrants.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:03 pm

Seems obvious you're both right here.

Canada is indeed a coveted destination for many immigrants. We would have a US-style problem with illegal immigration if we happened to border countries filled with would-be migrants. We turn away millions of would be citizens and residents.

Relative economic development, freedom and security are obviously all draws for immigrants. There's two parts to that equation though. Many fewer Guatemalans would be desperate to leave home if there country were merely somewhat less affluent than the US and Canada, rather being destitute and unsafe, and the extent of their material deprivation and political instability is rather obviously at least partly a product of a US-led coup that was tailor made to erode the state capacity and economic development. Imperialism isn't a plausible explanation for all, nor likely even most, of the demand for migration to America — but it's clearly a relevant factor in many notable cases.

by **Octavious** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:48 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:27 pm
According to most measures (such as human development index, average incomes, etc), Canada has a measurably higher standard of living than the United States, and they share a large land border with few physical barriers.

By your logic, Octavious, there would be a huge annual flow of migrants from the United States to Canada

The human development index of both nations is virtually the same, although Canada is slightly ahead. The average income in Canada is quite a way lower than that of the USA. I don't know where you're pulling your facts from, Jamie, but they're more than a little suspect. I fear you're talking bollocks

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:27 pm

According to most measures (such as human development index, average incomes, etc), Canada has a measurably higher standard of living than the United States, and they share a large land border with few physical barriers.

By your logic, Octavious, there would be a huge annual flow of migrants from the United States to Canada. However this is not the case.

You need to understand why people are fleeing their countries of origin at all. Why don't they stay at home? The disruption, poverty, and violence caused by imperialism is a major factor.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:04 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:53 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:36 pm
I put it to you that American imperialism, rather than the image of American prosperity, is a significant driver of demand in all of the cases mentioned.
So, to summarise, it is your opinion that the people who leave these countries set their sights on a hostile imperial nation as their new home rather than the scores of Spanish speaking nations with similar climates and cultures? And it's not primarily because the US offers the promise of a vastly superior quality of life, but rather because of their hostile imperialism?

Well, that's an interesting view... I disagree

My point is that fewer of them would be trying to leave their country of origin at all, if it weren't for the horribly damaging effects of American imperialism.

by **Octavious** » Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:56 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:36 pm
Do you think that Donald Trump's widely reported 2018 comments that El Salvador is a "shithole country" would make poor people in El Salvador more likely to want to emigrate, or more likely to continue living in a "shithole"?

I think it would make literally no difference to their desire to leave. They either live in a shithole or not, and Trump's opinion doesn't change that. I suspect it will make some of them think twice about whether they want Trump's US to be their new home

Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

Re: Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace