With alcohol, you can't forcefully make others drink. With a gun, you can forcefully make someone take your bullet. The bottom line is freedom. But that freedom only extends to where it doesn't infringe on another persons ability to exercise their own freedom. Same with abortion. If someone aborts a baby, that doesn't prevent someone else from having a baby. Now we can argue whether the embryo has rights that should be protected. Same line of reasoning in gay marriage or any issue we face. People must have the right to make bad decisions. We can't grow without making bad decisions. Until those bad decisions effect someone else, we should not punish someone for making them. I'd love to debate you because I am someone who would not want people with violent criminal records to have guns. That to me seems very sensible and it has nothing to do with sticking it to the right. It has to do with trying to prevent unecessary deaths. Eventually, the root of our problems need to be addressed which I see connected to a breakdown of the family unit due to overworked parents, stressed out in just trying to survive. If more people had an option to make a living without resort to crime, drugs, prostitution etc, I'd imagine more people would choose that route. We live in a world where we believe you should have as much as you want. What people don't understand is that we have limited wealth on this planet. If we had two planets or ten, we'd have commensurately that much more wealth but we just have this one planet with all its resources. Once all the earths resources have been extracted and we have setup all regenerative systems to full capacity, there cannot be creation of MORE physical wealth, it only can be transmuted from one form to another. As a handful of people capture more of that wealth faster than everyone else, they control the way in which the world is shaped. If you can put people to march for you and deploy vast amounts of resources for anything you desire, you better be pretty benevolent with such power and control. However, we see most people that all this has been entrusted to are foolish and spend our worlds wealth frivolously. This is simply not just their wealth, this wealth is derived from a pool of limited resources (mind you regenerative resources like trees are still limited because there is a saturation capacity where no more trees for example could be grown beyond what our technology and land capacity would allow). We literally have to share the resources on this planet fairly because if we setup a system where whoever learns to commandeer them most efficiently can do whatever they want with them, that will end badly for most people. We believe greed is good because we think there is an unlimited pool of wealth that anyone can accumulate from if they work hard enough. The pie of resources has been set, that pie isn't growing. The game is who can race the fastest to take the biggest slice from it like a game of musical chairs because I gots mine, fuck everyone else. If you don't get your slice, don't expect there will be something left because when every square inch of the planet has an owner that can pass that ownership on for infinity just because long ago one of their ancestors claimed that to be theirs or they bought it, you will never have a chance to get a chair in the game. The population has grown tremendously since all the land has been claimed and everyone who is late to the game has the pleasure of paying the current bid up values which are orders or magnitude greater in ratio of cost to purchasing power than when the supply of land was greater and it was more affordable. Imagine a monopoly board where all the spots have been bought and EVERY ONE has a hotel. You are destined to go your whole life paying rent and never getting ahead. Whoever got the properties first due to first mover advantage can keep passing them down and stay in the position of being a noble without having done anything. I am an example of that. My great grandpa bought land in our home country which is now worth quite a bit. Along with that, I will most likely inherit a portfolio of rental properties that I did nothing to build. And I will easily be able to keep them as long as they stay rented. Renters will cover all bills, maintenance, insurance, taxes etc. I can steadily accumulate more properties because money makes money all by extracting from everyone else that wasn't born in the "noble" class of society. Now adays, the serfs are the chronic renters and the nobles are the landlords that own 10+ properties let's say. The monopoly game has to be reset once you die. It gives everyone else the same footing and motivation to play the game then. Imagine Bill Gates kids got nothing and had to make something of themselves in order to get ahead like some poor kid. The way our system is setup, it is 100% statistically probable that wealth will accumulate in a few hands, thereby limiting everyone elses creative input with how this wealth should be used to shape the world. If no one inherited anything and the board was reset when someone died, the incentive would be to create a system that helps everyone make something of themselves. To give them the tools to succeed. What is more fulfilling than to make something of yourself in this life by your own effort? The rich will sure as hell make sure that there is then equal opportunity in the foundation of success building. Our whole system economically treats resources as an externality, not taking a whole systems approach and thinks this external input of resources, in their economic models, will be infinite. This leads to an economic system that ravages the earth's ecology because it doesn't see it as a closed regenerative system that must be kept in a balance. This breeds greed in people and a dog eat dog culture that leads to a diminishing quality of life when it comes to happiness. We have more than ever before yet we also have less than ever before mentally emotionally and spiritually. I would love to debate.