Carter

I checked up on that book about which cultures are the "most successful". Its called "Who Prospers?: How Cultural Values Shape Economic and Political Success" by Lawrence E. Harrison It's listed at Amazon.com

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard: >>It isn't "True". It's just one way of looking at the world, no better or worse than others, simply useful in the proper context. >Certainly you have to admit that some philosophies are better than others. Application of theory which yields results can be compared. Better at what? Based on what criteria? What results are we trying to maximize? What are we tring to minimize? Unless and until we can clearly express what we want, we can't evaluate much of anything. That caveat said, I do agree that some forms of government (the palpable product of a political philosophy) are better suited to producing some results than others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was just trying to counter your claim here that some political philosophies are "no better or worse than others". You do now agree that "some forms of government ... are better suited to producing some results than others." So I think I made my point. I'm certain that natural rights can be demonstrated to be superior to other systems on many sets of criteria. But that would be a real project that I'm not prepared to do at the moment. I will say the we have natural rights and freedom in the US which gives us a mostly "free" market. Because of that our economy is the largest in the world. Wealth is certainly one measure of success. There is a book out there (the title escapes me) that did exhaustive research into which cultures and societies have "been the most successful". The conclusion in the book was that the free-est cultures with a good work ethic were the most successful. My point is that the English (well, Great Britain's) constitution does not reflect a strong Rousseau influence, as does the US'. In fact, the Brits don't even have a single document one can label as their constitution. Different tradition. To the best of my recollection, no one other than the Boers have accused the Brits of attempted genocide. My point is that a good, decent, just government does not require a strong infusion of Rousseau, or "natural" rights. I'm not all that familiar with Great Britain's government. But since John Locke was from Great Britain I suspect that they do have some concern for natural rights. On the other hand, I know that in the past we've had problems with England not respecting the natural rights of Americans. That's why we fought the American Revolution and the War of 1812. While the War of 1812 is way in the past, we got into it because the British were kidnapping American sailors and forcing them into the service of Great Britain. And I know that American's weren't the only former British colonists that felt their rights were violated. -- Besides that I think you need to read up on John Locke, Rousseau, Libertarianism, and anarchism. I think you'll be surprised at what you find. You can read that article I posted on "The Corruption of Democracy" for John Locke/Rousseau. I also found a website for you on libertarianism: http://www.libertarianism.org/

Terry, I really debated replying to your last post. I've already demonstrated that much of what you wrote in your first post was wrong. I'm sorry, but because of that I don't put any weight on what you've written in your last post. However, because people seem to still be interested, here's my reply: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard: >The way I see the problem is that people/governments don't respect each others rights. Governments exist to protect our rights. We don't exist to serve the government. The government exists, at least in part, to keep us all from killing one another. Without that fundamental functionality, we don't have a government. This is fundamental because people in general do NOT respect the rights of other people. We, as human beings, require laws and the force necessary to enforce those laws in order to live peacably with one another. Don't agree? Cite one single place in the world where one can live peacably that has no government. I'll save you the effort. There are none. Even the hunter-gatherer tribes found in Borneo and New Guinea have a huge murder rate (from memory about 1/3 of all male mortality was violent murder).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I take from this statement that you now agree with me that: -people have rights -people not respecting each other's rights is a problem -that it is the government's job to protect our rights. A government can be described, at least in part, by a sets of rights. However, this would be a very high level description. It would be impossible to construct an actual effective government with nothing the rights of the citizens to work from. We need more (lots, actually). That's why we have the Constitution. It's more than just rights. It lays down a framework for government. From a systems design point of view, each force should have a counter-balancing force or forces. In the realm of human government, the classic pairing is rights with responsibilities. In the US Constitution, there is no such pairing. Even in business, Chief Executive Officers have fiduciary responsibilities to balance out their managerial rights. This is simply good sense. The US Constitution was worked out pretty well so far. The country has held up for over 200 years. And the document has been the primary model for written constitutions everywhere since its creation. The document make pretty good sense to me the way it is. >We may well incarcerate too many people. But you should check your figures. There are about 2 million prisoners in the US. With a population of well over 200 million, that comes out to less than 1% of the population in jail. Depends on how you do your statistics. 2 million / 284 million = 0.7% Up to 25% of some demographics are currently incarcerated or have been recently incarcerated. Check the stats on black males. Is this right? If you do the crime, you do the time. Regardless of skin color. Are you advocating racial quotas for prisons? Like "well, we know this guy's a murderer but we've got too many people of his race locked up already so we'll have to let him go." Remember ... "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent" But yeah, I'll agree with you that there are way too many people locked up for victimless crimes. We need to concentrate on stopping the people who hurt other people. More later.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coyote: The founders realization that collective responsibility was the key to ensuring collective rights predates the Constitution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you've got this half right. I think the founders believed that the collective responsibility is the key to ensuring "individual" rights. Freedom is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited" Freedom is great stuff as long as you don't violate other people's rights. The constitution guaranteed us many freedoms and rights. Responsibility is implicit in freedom. Personal freedom means that you make your own choices. You are then responsible for whatever choices you make. If you make a bad choice, who's fault is it but your own? If your choice is successful in some way or another, wouldn't you deserve the credit? Personal freedom = Personal responsibility

Yes. There is a Starship Troopers TV series. Its called: "Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles" There's a good fan website for the show at: http://www.trooperpx.com/RSTC/series.html

Torsten, glad you liked the article. I ran across it the other week. It really struck a nerve with me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard: >I would have to say that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >The constitution was written to guarantee our "pre-existing natural rights". That's from Rousseau. A French philosopher popular in the 18th century. In my humble opinion, he was wrong. There are no "natural" rights, unless that is a reference to the right to do what comes naturally (sheep have a right to eat grass, for example). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually that's from John Locke. Locke believed in natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Rousseau didn't believe in natural rights. Apparently you do agree with Rousseau. [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

From Torsten Glacer: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...the US promotes a very selfish set of morals in which you serve yourself and only yourself. WIth that kind of outlook on life a government can't last long. Oh well..just my opinion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may find this article about "The Corruption of Democracy" interesting. It is a penetrating look into modern politics. The first part is about campaign contributions. But the article nicely opens up to a discussion of two different conceptions of democracy. One type is indeed the kind that "can't last long" It is the type without individual rights. http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/nav_4_4_com_the_corruption_of_democracy.asp [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre: carter - whoa! how did you infer support for mob rule from what i wrote? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe there was some misunderstanding. I thought you were saying that people had to earn all of their rights. It seemed to me that you were advocating that it would be okay to force everyone to work for the government for two years. I see that as an infraction on natural rights that could lead to mob rule. What's to stop the mob without natural rights? I disagree that people have to earn all of their rights and that the government should be able to force everyone to work for them for 2 years. That is what I was arguing against. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> read heinlein? nah, i haven't - aside from every anthology i could find, every novel and quite a few essays. if anything i'd say he was anarchist a la bakunin - even more individualist than libertarianism<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've read a lot more Heinlein than me. Sorry for attempting to lecture you on Heinlein. I think I misinterpreted what you were saying. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> i suggested compulsory service because the US has a mandated right to vote for almost everyone who's over 17 the Starship Troopers society only gives the right to vote or hold public office to successful -volunteers- for civic service, -not- everyone<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can see the point about wanting voters to be educated and involved. I only disagree on the methods. I would be more partial to giving up voting rights than freedom. But I don't really want to give up either. Reasonable people disagree on what natural rights people have. I think I've made the point I wanted to make.

Wow, I'm glad to see my strong opinions have an audience! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard:

The founding fathers believed as I do that people are born with "natural rights". You don't earn them. If you don't believe in natural rights then tell me. . . Is it okay if 90% of a nation want to murder the other 10%? Its a democratic decision. But is it okay? If you don't beleive in natural rights then how would you disagree? I would have to say that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution was written to guarantee our "pre-existing natural rights" The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany didn't believe in natural rights, with predicatable results. And I'm pretty sure that Robert Heinlein believed in natural rights too. I've read that far from being a fascist, he was liberatarian in his thinking. I've read the book Starship Troopers, and as I recall miliary service, even when Earth was being attacked, was voluntary. Starship Troopers is anti-collectivist if you think about it. I mean the whole book is about fighting the collectivist "bugs". While you're reading Robert Heinlein's books, check out "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". I think his beliefs will become more clear. [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

Yeah, I've been reading about the case history of the 13th amendment. Your example of Lincoln is good as far as to show the intent of the law. I don't believe the intent was to end the draft or jury duty. However, it's well understood that sometimes actions and laws have unintended consequences. I know how the supreme court has interpreted the amendment in the past, but they've gotten creative with their interpretations on many occasions. Reading the plain text of the amendment one can see that it obviously was meant to apply to both the government and private individuals. I mean, why even mention "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" unless the amendment applied to the government? I think that when the amendment was enacted, everyone agreed that "involuntary servitude" was a bad thing. They just didn't have a full grasp of what the implications of ending it were. I'm certain your plan would be legally challenged along the lines of the thirteenth amendment. And since, in this day and age, they don't even enforce jury duty, I doubt your plan would hold up. And as far as Lincoln forcing people to work on behalf of the government . . . Lincoln is well known to have exceeded his constitutional authority on many occasions. -He arrested the Maryland state legislator before they had the chance to vote on secession. -He arrested people and held them without trial. -He instated an income tax, decades before a constitutional amendment made it legal. The list goes on... -- This is an interesting link to the Thirteenth amendment and its case history: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/index.html

One other note. The Thirteenth amendement in the constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude" except as punishment after conviction of a crime. It reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." It's illegal to force people to work for you.

Posted by elementalwarre: "i'm not at all sure that uninformed, uninterested universal suffrage is what the US founding fathers had in mind" Probably not, but they did establish the electoral college and a "representative" system so that the "masses" wouldn't vote directly. Their idea was that the representatives who did the real voting would be informed and interested. Plus the rule-of-law of the constitution was meant to put limits on both government and democracy. "- to demonstrate that a citizen is responsible enough to vote, they should demonstrate that they can place their society's needs above their own" I would substitute "politician" for "citizen" in this sentence. One of the problems we have to day, as I see it, is that many politicians place their own needs (power/money) above society's needs. One could argue that citizen's needs are quite similar to society's needs, but that depends on what you mean by "needs" and is a whole other subject.

About Team Krempp: Check out the post "Team Krempp" on 3-13-2000. I haven't beaten Team Krempp without some added extras. I got so frustrated that one time I added 5 shots of MLRS. After softening up the hill with five rocket salvos, my infantry practically walked right in! [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

To answer some of your questions minmax, I started my job as an engineer at 23, after 4 years earning my undergraduate degree and 2 years earning my masters degree. I studied hard and went to good schools. I had about a 3.5 GPA during my undergraduate years. This is starting to sound like a resume How would I lose 2 years out of my engineering career? Lets say that I will work till 65. That's about 42 years I will have working as an engineer. If I spent 2 of my younger years working in a youth program, I would have had only 40 years working as an engineer. I would have lost 2 years off my regular career. It _IS_ sad how many people drop out/fail out of college. And I've seen first hand how serious people can become after waiting years for the opportunity to go to college. From what I've seen I think a lot of the situation is that most people 18-19 are not all that mature. I was mature. (if I do say so myself ) And I've known people that age that are mature. But a lot of 18 and 19 year olds still consider themselves kids. They're still growing up. They're learning to live away from home and making mistakes like anyone would when doing something new. I don't have all the answers. I'm not a social-engineer. But I believe in personal responsibility. For better or worse. "What constitutes good civics education, Theory or Practice?" You should have both theory and practice in a good education. If you only go through the motions of practice, you may not understand why. I think you already made a good case for why teaching only theory is bad. (By the way, sounds like a lot of fun to learn the theory and practice of an M60E3 ) My granddad was in the CCC, and fought in both WWII and Korea. So I'm familiar with a lot of what you're talking about. He thought that the CCC was a good experience for him and a lot of young people during the depression. But that the CCC was really something that was part of those times. America is a different place today. As I recall, Bill Clinton tried to bring the program back with limited success. "Freedom is not valuable until it is threatened and or taken away." Freedom is always valuable, but not always appreciated. A funny part about human psychology is that people don't seem to appreciate things until they are threatened or taken away. "Bottom line, most kids in this country could give a crap about what keeps this country rolling. Public service (Domestic and Foreign) is someone else's concern." Its true of a lot of adults too. I think that's how so many people in this world get exploited. They let somebody else worry about things. Then dishonest people go to work while they're not paying any attention. "And don't worry it takes quite a bit to offend me." Glad I didn't offend you. I always enjoy your inputs, stories, and discussions, even if I don't always agree.

minmax, I understand that you mean well with you idea for a mandatory 2 year service to the US government. But I don't think you're seeing the repercussions of it. You say "I advocate a two year service to this nation." and "all Americans should give up two years of their lives at a minimum to give back to a nation that gives them so much. " That sounds great. I know your thoughts and goals are noble. But I interpret those sentences a little differently, if they were put into practice. With all due respect, I read it as: All young Americans will be forced, by the proverbial gun-to-the-head, to give up two years of their life to perform a kind of slave labor for the government. All because our schools are incapable of teaching civics. Moral questions aside, you could do great damage to the economy with a program like that. Lets say that I had to give 2 years of my life doing work for the government. That's effectively 2 years that I wouldn't be working at my job as an engineer. I think I contribute a lot more to this country as an engineer than I would "Pick[ing] up trash along on the highway, file[ing] paper work, [or] work[ing] at summer camps." I'm not trying to be insulting. I know you mean well, but this is how I interpret those statements. You ask young people to "give back to a nation that gives them so much." But what did this country give them? In a word, I would say FREEDOM. But if you take away 2 years of their freedom, they probably wouldn't feel like they owed this country as much, because it took a significant amount of their freedom away. And if you think that the military draft is unpopular, just think about the objection to an unnecessary civilian-type draft. This reminds me of the Khmer Rouge communists in Cambodia. When the communists took over Cambodia, they decided to "re-make" society. There goals sounded noble. They wanted "equality of mankind, including political and economic and social equality" In practice, they killed all the educated people they could find. Then they forced most everyone to work on public works projects. Killing those that wouldn't cooperate. In the end, most of the public works projects failed, and the communists had murdered 2 million people, a quarter of the population.

As a civilian, I strongly AGREE that the military is VITAL to protecting our rights. And the right to bear arms is also essential to protect our rights. However I have to disagree with the statement made by minmax that "all Americans should give up two years of their lives at a minimum to give back to a nation that gives them so much. " Requiring people into service is coercion. It is dangerous and open to exploitation. This kind of thing was the bread-and-butter of the communists and fascists that we worked so hard to defeat. I quote Ronald Reagan: "[T]he most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral... a draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending." I believe our military is much better off today being an all-volunteer force. Any civilian endeavor is also better off being an all-volunteer group. If you want people to work for you, convince them, don't force them.

I was just thinking today that it would be cool to have decoy tanks in Tacops. Like inflatable Abrams that also replicate the tank's thermal signature. Decoys would be used on the defense. Drawing fire and maybe keeping the enemy a little distracted. I don't know if its on the wishlist yet, so I thought I'd mention it. :cool:

Thanks MajorH! Appreciate the info. I'm looking forward to some good reading.

Two other things to keep in mind when building artillery accuracy are: 1) Your accuracy doens't improve unless somebody can see where the artillery lands. 2) Firing For Effect builds accuracy much quicker than using an adjusting round.

In response to LTC Grossman's point of view, here is a link to a paper on the subject of video games and "moral panics" The abstract is as follows: "Moral panics occur when media and society link youth culture to juvenile delinquency, as video games were to the 1999 Columbine shootings. In all moral panics, patterns emerge of how the media chooses to portray what society finds threatening, and what the panics mean in a larger societal context. This paper analyzes video games as a modern moral panic by examining rock 'n roll, comic books, and Dungeons and Dragons as historical moral panics. " http://www.gamebits.net/other/mqp.html By Kenneth A. Gagne

You might want to look at the posts: "A question for the Major ...." on 3-10-2001 and "TacOps 4.0" on 3-14-2001

I did a rough calculation of the energies of several bullets. There are various factors, like barrel length, that could change these estimates. 5.56 mm = 1500 J 7.62 mm Short = 2600 J 7.62 mm NATO = 3400 J The 7.62 mm Short is supposed to have poor "terminal" effects. The bullet won't break up unless fired at point blank. That's probably why the Russians switched to the 5.45 mm. On a slightly different note . . . The US is developing individual and crew served weapons that use 20 mm bursting munitions. These weapons can engage targets while in defilade. The munition explodes over the head of an enemy who might otherwise be behind cover. The weapons are supposed to be substitutes for the 40mm and .50 Cal. They look like the best new advance in anti-personnel/anti-lightarmor infantry weapons.

I've read that the 5.56 mm is better than the 7.62 mm short. Kinetic Energy = .5 x mass x velocity squared Therefore its usually better to be fast and small rather than big and slow. The 7.62 mm NATO is big and pretty fast. Another thing to consider is that "Interceptor" body armor that can stop rifle rounds is becoming more available. If the bad guys get good body armor like Interceptor, the 5.56 mm will become less effective. A 7.62 mm AP would be able to penetrate Interceptor body armor.