From each according to their ability to each according to their needs is arguably the most insidiously evil social concept I've ever heard of.
I feel similarly about concepts such as work ethic and the idea that valuing labor for it's own sake is a path to reward, rather than a carrot dangled in front of slaves to keep them in line while others benefit from their labor.
Most of humanity is dirt poor and most of them will work themselves to death in a losing battle to elevate themselves or their children. It doesn't have to be this way, but as long as enough people think Jeff Bezos somehow single handedly works harder, or is somehow smarter, than the sum of the billion poorest people on Earth, that's the way things will stay.
It's naive to think that you can have that without a club over people's heads. That system is a fantastic definition of over bearing government coercion and regulation, which is why I'm surprised to hear you espouse it as some kind of worthy ideal.
Other people able to lay claim to the fruits of my industry, financial risk taking, hard work and entrepreneurship simply because they don't/haven't exhibited those survival traits is a downright horror.
I help those around me, in those communities I choose to be a part of, free of charge. There is no club over my head, no coercion, and no governance involved in this. I simply share what I am able when I feel I am able. It's basic enlightened self-interest and reciprocity.
If someone doesn't want to behave in a reciprocal manner, that's unfortunate, but entirely their choice. I can and will charge them for what I'd happily give away otherwise.
No one, other than certain governments, presumes to lay claim to anything of mine, and I give them such a runaround for it that I they have to be paying upwards of ten dollars for every one I end up surrendering to them. Indeed, if it weren't for their imposition, I'd have very little use for money.
There are two kinds of people in America who think that's a good idea: the type at the very top who live in exquisite luxury while preaching the social glories and philosophical benefits of breadlines (think Bernie Sanders, or perhaps James Cameron) reaping the benefits of a labor force working under these conditions, and those with their hands out.
Well, I'm certainly neither of these.
No, violent crime rate in my country(USA) was almost double what it is today.
I've always been optimistic about the utility of violence!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
Even if you take that completely literally, every male between the age of majority and 54, if i recall correctly, in the United States is a member of the militia of the United States. And since it's now rightly illegal to discriminate on basis of gender in this regard, any legal challenge to the Militia Acts would certainly result in that applying to everyone.
It's a civil rights issue too.
Gun control is disproportionately applied to minorities and other marginalized groups. Far easier for a well-off white to get through all the red tape and cover all the licensing fees, especially for some classes of weapons. How many Class 3 licenses or NFA Gun Trusts are in the hands of someone who isn't making six or more figures a year? Who other than the rich can afford the pre-1986 grandfathered firearms still on the market?
This is one of the reasons I'm opposed to gun control it in essentially all it's forms. It's intrinsically discriminatory.
European supressor laws are often way better!
My hypothesis is that anti-gun fanatics in the US want to punish firearm owners with premature hearing issues, purely out of spite. It's the only logical reason for limiting access to suppressors.
www.hawaiinewsnow.com
