Knights & Knaves Alehouse

dcs wrote:Yes, it's true, and there's nothing wrong with it, since one is choosing to live there after all.

It's no different, really, than a restrictive covenant on property.

Well, the British attitude must be different. Restrictive covenants devalue property here, we don't pay extra in order to be regulated.

SemajTheSilent wrote:the universal drinking age in the US is 21.

Good Lord.

So when you're twenty years old, you can carry a loaded firearm but you're not allowed to buy a beer?

P&P: The US does all three of those things to at least as great an extent as the UK, mind.


P&P, I think you should know I am not under the delusion that our nation is "free". It is miles from where I want to see it. Still its more free then many other places (perhaps any place, don't know). And it has a legal system and constitution that says my views are right. Sure, the constitution has largely been ignored, and the government has its fingers in everyones pockets and lives. But, at least the battle is ongoing, and many here that agree with me are still fighting the good fight. Moving toward an ideal is all any of us can hope for. The fact that we can never reach that ideal doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Believe me, I'm even more worried about whats going on in my own country then anyone elses (never mind England).

Speaking of cameras monitoring the public, I've seen cameras popping up on traffic lights and interstates all over the place. They say there to cetch speeders and traffic light violators. I suspec they may be the foundation of a national tracking system for vehicles, drivers and passangers (all now able to be photographed in detail). Anyone know if such a system is being put in place?

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

dcs wrote:Yes, it's true, and there's nothing wrong with it, since one is choosing to live there after all.

It's no different, really, than a restrictive covenant on property.

Well, the British attitude must be different. Restrictive covenants devalue property here, we don't pay extra in order to be regulated.

Still, there must be a market for it, since people willingly choose to live there.

If a difference in attitude is all there is, then one should celebrate the freedom of Americans and British, respectively, to adopt different attitudes towards certain things.

I don't think restrictive covenants necessarily devalue property, though. Suppose one moves into a residential area where the land cannot be used for commercial purposes because of a restrictive covenant. That might be valuable to certain people.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:As for rights... well, you live in a nation where you can't have sex or drink alcohol until you're eighteen, there are laws regulating what you do in your bedroom, it's illegal to be a prostitute, and it only just became legal to give a teenager the morning after pill.

Some might view that as a vindication of parental rights.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

SemajTheSilent wrote:the universal drinking age in the US is 21.

Good Lord.

So when you're twenty years old, you can carry a loaded firearm but you're not allowed to buy a beer?

In my State at least, one can get a hunting license when one is 12 years old.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

SemajTheSilent wrote:the universal drinking age in the US is 21.

Good Lord.

So when you're twenty years old, you can carry a loaded firearm but you're not allowed to buy a beer?

It also used to be different in different states...really different. However, in the past 20-30 years, the incident rate for teenagers drinking and driving, drinking and doing other retarded things that led to their deaths and/or the deaths of others prompted Congress to impose an across the line age limit of 21.

It could change anytime. It's a law, and laws can be struck down or modified. For instance, until the 26th Amendment, the voting age varied from state to state...though most were at 21. The 26th Amendment lowered it to 18 under the idea that if 18 year old boys could die in Vietnam, they could vote in elections.

Other things vary according to social need. When I was teen, you could get your driver's license at 16 or at 14 if you could prove you were needed by your family as a driver...the "hardship license." Now, in Arkansas, you get your license at 16, but have to have a licensed adult in the vehicle with you at all times for the first 6 months. Why? Because way too many Arkansan teens were getting their licenses...with about two or three months experience behind the wheel... then going wild and having wrecks. Other states have different laws about this sort of thing.

AxeMental wrote:I just stated I don't support "forcing freedom" (by FORCE I mean, violence or the threat of violence) on anyone. However, I do support sanctions against dictators that rule with an iron fist, I also support Radio Free America, and our government supporting political parties and organizations in other countries that support freedom.

Sanctions are an act of war. How exactly do we improve the lot of people living under tyranny by denying them material goods? Why should people living under tyranny feel well-disposed towards the U.S., and ill-disposed towards their tyrannical leader, if the U.S. is imposing sanctions on them? Do you think the Iraqis approved of U.S. sanctions? How have sanctions helped the people of Cuba?

I am not an isolationist, but I am also not a globalist nor a nationalist.

And I don't think democracy is all it's cracked up to be.

And I don't think we should impose American-style "freedom" on people who don't want it.

dcs wrote:

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

SemajTheSilent wrote:the universal drinking age in the US is 21.

Good Lord.

So when you're twenty years old, you can carry a loaded firearm but you're not allowed to buy a beer?

In my State at least, one can get a hunting license when one is 12 years old.

Heh. In Arkansas, you don't have to have a hunting license until you're 16. But until you're 16, you must have a licensed adult with you in the woods.

dcs wrote:Still, there must be a market for it, since people willingly choose to live there.

Sure! There's always a market, even for relatively undesirable places (e.g. trailers).

dcs wrote:I don't think restrictive covenants necessarily devalue property, though. Suppose one moves into a residential area where the land cannot be used for commercial purposes because of a restrictive covenant. That might be valuable to certain people.

Well, the siting of commercial premises relative to residential ones is a matter for the planning authority rather than a restrictive covenant; but that's only a quibble and I do see your point.

dcs wrote:And I don't think democracy is all it's cracked up to be.

It's not...but like Winston Churchill said "democracy is the worst system in the world except for every other one."

P&P" Back before I was a father, I'd have agreed with you. Give me liberty, not security, and hang the consequences.

Now I've got a wife and a son I see this more as a balancing act. Your freedom to own a gun doesn't trump my freedom to know my son isn't going to get held up at gunpoint for his mobile phone on the way to school; and there are certainly plenty of times when my family's security is very definitely more important than their freedom. "

BINGO!!!

THATS IT! I think you've hit the nail on the head (why so many people are willing to give up freedom...fear).

There is a saying here "Live free or die". Not everyone can meet that ideal (truthfully, not even myself) but I try my best.

BTW, when I stated that many in Europe let Hitler rise to power, I didn't mean everyone (and not England, though there were those in England that let it happen, for instance declaring war against Germany when it first started invading its neighbors over bogus claims of ethnic unity).

Yeah, I think America should've joined in ASAP, the writing was on the wall. But then we had our own brand of cowards and fools, no fewer in number then any other place.

I suppose I shouldn't say I'm pro-USA as much as I am pro-Freedom. One is nationalistic, the other idealistic. If my country ever became "the enemy" to freedom, I would fight against it tooth and nail (at least I hope I would, but as you say with a family thats difficult to predict).

SemajTheSilent wrote:

dcs wrote:And I don't think democracy is all it's cracked up to be.

It's not...but like Winston Churchill said "democracy is the worst system in the world except for every other one."

Which implies that it is the best . . . but it isn't. In fact, I think a monarchy is far more desirable than democracy.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Well, the siting of commercial premises relative to residential ones is a matter for the planning authority rather than a restrictive covenant; but that's only a quibble and I do see your point.

We have zoning laws here too; but they can be changed. A restrictive covenant can't be, at least in theory (of course a government committed to changing the covenant certainly can).

I would put more trust in a restrictive covenant than in a zoning board.

dcs wrote:

SemajTheSilent wrote:

dcs wrote:And I don't think democracy is all it's cracked up to be.

It's not...but like Winston Churchill said "democracy is the worst system in the world except for every other one."

Which implies that it is the best . . . but it isn't. In fact, I think a monarchy is far more desirable than democracy.

So would I...but only if I were the monarch.