Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[ICantSpellDawg]

The NRA gets the vast majority of its money from manufacturers, not members. Hence its ability to sell cut-rate memberships for months on end. Hence its willingness to go against the will of its members, 74% of whom are in favor of universal background checks.

ICSD, if you think the NRA is working for you, you are deluded. You are one of the 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members in favor of universal background checks. The fact that you're now reversing yourself on a slim talking point is ... revealing.

On the interesting side, I do believe the NRA and its boot-licking minions in the Republican party have overreached. This will have consequences.

-edit-

Doing a little more reading, looks like the relationship between the NRA and manufacturers is more complicated than I'm making it out to be. Nevertheless, the central point stands: The NRA does not represent its members, but rather a fringe-right extremist policy underwritten by manufacturers, not dues-paying members. Like Republican congressmen in gerrymandered states, the NRA only fears challenges from the right. The 90% of Americans who favor universal background checks are just background noise to these extremists. And talking-point parroting drama enthusiasts like ICSD are what Stalin would call "useful idiot"

Yea, I'm a useful idiot because I don't think that background checks are the be all end all of our children's security. Not a bad idea, mind you, but your stat is bogus. People like the idea of background checks, that doesn't mean 90% liked the Senate bill or even the compromise. There is false equivalence being peddled by your side.

I like expansive gun rights. I want to own the firearms that are banned in multiple states. There is strength in numbers and I would prefer to side with people who like guns than people who don't. People who forge their own way on everything and can't keep to the common goal lose. The gun control lobby did that in this instance, attacking each others proposals, and they paid for it. BTW, confessions by Feldman is an attack piece against the NRA. He wants to start his own gun organization, presumably so that he can cash into the overflow. If an organization were to exist that opposed the mag limits and awb, but supported universal background checks, I'd join them too.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, I get it. This is like that moment in the Marijuana thread when rvg's viewpoint also made sense. Yours might actually be worse than his though. You do know you're a Neo-Con right?

What does being a neo-con actually mean to you? Also, what does it have to do with anything in this context?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What are you talking about? None of what you've said follows a rational read of what we are discussing here. Some of what I'm saying makes it sound like I support the Patriot Act?

Are you drunk?

[Lemur]

There is false equivalence being peddled by your side.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

If an organization were to exist that opposed the mag limits and awb, but supported universal background checks, I'd join them too.

But instead you throw in your lot with the extremists, drama queens, and hysterical sky-is-falling panic merchants at the NRA. Bully for you. You are their servant, and you will never be their master. You don't even seem to be clear on who you're really serving. Enjoy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.


But instead you throw in your lot with the extremists, drama queens, and hysterical sky-is-falling panic merchants at the NRA. Bully for you. You are their servant, and you will never be their master. You don't even seem to be clear on who you're really serving. Enjoy.

It means what I think it means. You think support for background checks means support for the Senate Democrats bill. You, and many others, have suggested that support for universal background checks implies a certain way to do them. I disagree, while supporting the idea of universal background checks, I wanted less potential negative outcomes for people who lose the paperwork or were gifting guns to friends and family. I was willing to compromise, democrats wouldn't come the extra few steps and make the deal. They could have had the votes. They only missed it by 2 or 3. They decided not to finish the negotiations. I can't blame them

Its just that the gun lobby and myself might not hate the idea but we don't think it will do much. It was the Senate democrats baby. By not getting background checks we didn't feel like we've lost anything. We are in the same place that we were before. None of the provisions would have prevented the past shootings.

We can start over in the House and push for new gun laws on our terms. Maybe for certain concessions we will add another background checks bill and a trafficking provision in there. Remember, we werent the ones who wanted to rush into this for emotional reasons or hysteria. You guys did. Its a bit disingenuous to suggest that our side is the only wailing, mob mentality, emotional horde on this one

How is it on your high horse, mastering others and getting countless reasonable things done, btw? I do appreciate that blaming the NRA has fit into your busy schedule of blaming the GOP for bad weather and tooth decay.

On the flip side, you were right about how little support the awb and mag limits had in the Senate. I gradually did the count and agreed with you, if you recall.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There certainly is something to be said for politicians playing on peoples' heart-strings too much. The tactic is disingenuous, and people shouldn't put up with it in the political arena where these things are freaking serious. Emotions have no place in logical proceedings.

I blame the media for opening the door on that one. People offer up the parents of victims like they're some kind of evidence. They're not. They're evidence only of the fact that someone got shot, so why the heck is that person on my TV, talking like some kind of freaking expert? We'll never get anywhere as a culture if we think tear-jerking is useful in serious discourse. Or any other kind of emotional manipulation. This is as true for Obama's push on guns as it was for the flag-waving hysteria that led up to the Bush Administration's Patriot Act (which nobody bothered to freaking read anyway). Not trying to equate the two situations, but I'm really freaking tired of people using any excuse to avoid talking about actual, logical, rational facts on the news or in congress.

Here here. The buzz wore off I see. Time to start drinking again. Its too late on a Friday night to be sober

[Lemur]

I was willing to compromise, democrats wouldn't come the extra few steps and make the deal. They could have had the votes. They only missed it by 2 or 3.

Needs citation, as the Wiki folks say. Claiming you "just need a few more concessions" is an age-old Senatorial way of saying "no." Your aw-shucks wide-eyed credulity at every statement made by the NRA is numbing.

None of the provisions would have prevented the past shootings.

Ah, the unknowable assertion that proves everything. This sort of loops back to the "criminals won't abide by laws, so why have laws?" train of nihilistic thought. Background checks make it harder for people with a record to get a gun, in much the same way that having a lock on your car door and a key for the ignition makes it harder for thieves to take your car. If your response to that is, "LOCKS DON'T STOP ALL CAR THEFTS," then all I can say is that you are blissfully disconnected from reality.

We can start over in the House

Oh, right, I'm sure that's going to happen any minute now. The House is really interested in streamlining and cleaning up gun law, that's obvious.

I do appreciate that blaming the NRA has fit into your busy schedule of blaming the GOP for bad weather and tooth decay.

And I appreciate your child-like credulity whenever the NRA opens its mouth. You want to know the sad thing? I'm old enough to remember when the NRA was a respectable organization. Now, frankly, they make the Muslim Brotherhood look like a model of Jeffersonian democracy and compromise.

Jump through whatever rationalizations you need to justify aligning yourself with fundamentalism. For some people, that kind of dualism and daily drama really gets them through the mundane day-to-day. It certainly seems to be working for you; cries of "your side" and "my side" spill trippingly off your lips. You want to know what "my" side is? Pragmatism. Gradualism. Moderation. A recognition that nobody has the magic ideology, the perfect formula, the silver bullet of freedom that makes everything sing with joy.

Universal background checks were politically and practically feasible, unlike the AWB ban, unlike LaPierre's fantasy of armed guards in every school. It was solid middle ground, broadly supported by the public and NRA members. The politicians you support aren't even able to articulate why they shot it down—your froth about how the Senate bill wasn't quite perfect, could not possibly be fixed, and therefore had to be killed (or was forced to die by the wicked, inflexible GUN GRABBERS), man, I'm only hearing that from you. Maybe I need to spend more time trolling the Freeper forums to hear this rhetoric.

The House is not going to introduce a UBC bill, and you know it. The only challenge House Repubs fear is from the right in their gerrymandered districts. They have ZERO reason to introduce a moderate, practical bill. And you appear to be hallucinating from the fumes of talking points you inhaled too quickly.

[Greyblades]

And while we're all clawing our throats out over guns the spawn-of-sopa: CISPA is sailing through under the radar. The Bawling over a small bruise to the second amendment is drowning out the screams of the first's murder.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This sort of loops back to the "criminals won't abide by laws, so why have laws?" train of nihilistic thought. Background checks make it harder for people with a record to get a gun, in much the same way that having a lock on your car door and a key for the ignition makes it harder for thieves to take your car. If your response to that is, "LOCKS DON'T STOP ALL CAR THEFTS," then all I can say is that you are blissfully disconnected from reality..

I reject the line of thought that background checks are unnecessary because criminals won't abide them. You are swinging at windmills on this assertion as far as I am concerned. Background checks are a good idea, Period. I accept many NRA suggestions, but on the balance this one doesnt hold up and I am on the side that Background checks are a helpful abridgement of our rights that are permissable because they don't restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

And I appreciate your child-like credulity whenever the NRA opens its mouth. You want to know what "my" side is? Pragmatism. Gradualism. Moderation. A recognition that nobody has the magic ideology, the perfect formula, the silver bullet of freedom that makes everything sing with joy.

Universal background checks were politically and practically feasible, unlike the AWB ban, unlike LaPierre's fantasy of armed guards in every school. It was solid middle ground, broadly supported by the public and NRA members. The politicians you support aren't even able to articulate why they shot it down—your froth about how the Senate bill wasn't quite perfect, could not possibly be fixed, and therefore had to be killed (or was forced to die by the wicked, inflexible GUN GRABBERS), man, I'm only hearing that from you. Maybe I need to spend more time trolling the Freeper forums to hear this rhetoric.

The House is not going to introduce a UBC bill, and you know it. The only challenge House Repubs fear is from the right in their gerrymandered districts. They have ZERO reason to introduce a moderate, practical bill. And you appear to be hallucinating from the fumes of talking points you inhaled too quickly.

On your second attempt to insult me personally - that I am a child-like, fume inhaling, hallucinating, idiot. All words which you have used to describe me directly here. I have not used these types of words with you, instead using words like "sanctimonious".
Also.
You imply that I was personally against the Toomy-Manchin compromise. False. I've posted my support of it on this very forum in this very thread days before the vote. I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.
You imply that I am against background checks. False. I am in favor of them and have said so multiple times in multiple venues to which you have access for months now.

My disagreements with the Manchin-Toomey bill were not sufficient to end my support of the compromise or the bill including the compromise. I supported the bill in this very thread days prior to the vote.

In the end, the balance of my allies on this issue did not feel as though it adequately protected the rights of citizens (Not all of my allies rejected it; ie Collins, King, Donelly, McCain, Manchin, Toomey, etc) I can see the logic in this suggestion after reading the bill language, although I disagreed and would have prefered passage.

I am sure that I've personally insulted you in the past, but not in this thread. My position on these issues is unashamedly extreme, but more often than not "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". My type of extremism accepts compromise and discusses issues with opponents.
Do I mourn the failure of this bill? No. Did I cheerlead its total failure? No.

You make me sound like al-qaeda.

[Montmorency]

What you don't seem to realize is that ICSD is himself a fundamentalist of the most extreme and fanatical sort, so of course he will support moderate measures only grudgingly and with a sneer, of course he'll shake your hand over compromise even as he watches like a leering wolf for any opportunity to pull his snub-nosed revolver out of its back-holster and aim...

Are you honestly surprised that, in victory, the villain reveals his true colors, Lemur?

Hitler widely proclaimed that his intention was to destroy democracy - he accomplished his goal.

ICSD has widely proclaimed that his desire is to see gun-control legislation rolled back to the point where buying a weapon is easier than buying candy, and the entire world is utterly awash with firearms (perhaps to an even greater extent than Syria?). It is your job to fight him at every step, Lemur. Complacency and forbearance are just the traits this pit-dog has got his eye out for. Be prepared to defend yourself and your ideals, or he'll tear you apart.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you don't seem to realize is that ICSD is himself a fundamentalist of the most extreme and fanatical sort, so of course he will support moderate measures only grudgingly and with a sneer, of course he'll shake your hand over compromise even as he watches like a leering wolf for any opportunity to pull his snub-nosed revolver out of its back-holster and aim...

Are you honestly surprised that, in victory, the villain reveals his true colors, Lemur?

Hitler widely proclaimed that his intention was to destroy democracy - he accomplished his goal.

ICSD has widely proclaimed that his desire is to see gun-control legislation rolled back to the point where buying a weapon is easier than buying candy, and the entire world is utterly awash with firearms (perhaps to an even greater extent than Syria?). It is your job to fight him at every step, Lemur. Complacency and forbearance are just the traits this pit-dog has got his eye out for. Be prepared to defend yourself and your ideals, or he'll tear you apart.

The Hitler comparison, the "fundamentalist of the most extreme sort". This one has it all. I've made my intentions extremely clear here.

I support background checks for all sales (degree here is the question)
I support no small arms limit on the types of firearms that an individual who passes a background check can own.
I am in favor of "shall-issue" permit for carry handgun owners
I am amenable to "shall-issue" permitting for owners of more theoretically dangerous firearms (ie, selective-fire, high capacity semi-auto)
I am opposed to registration of firearms.

[Lemur]

Background checks are a good idea, Period.

And yet you have aligned yourself with (and credulously repeat the talking points of) people who are dead set against those checks. Your behavior is interesting.

insult me personally - that I am a child-like, fume inhaling, hallucinating, idiot.

I said your "credulousnesss" was child-like; it is. The word idiot was in the context of Stalin's notion of a useful idiot—meaning someone who believes the surface rhetoric of a movement that has no morals, such as Stalinism or, say, the NRA. You claim to utterly and completely accept the surface rhetoric of the NRA, which makes you appear to be, yes, a "useful idiot."

the balance of my allies on this issue

You have no "allies" on this issue; you're either the catamite or the pimp, and I don't see you pimping.

Are you honestly surprised that, in victory, the villain reveals his true colors, Lemur?

Hitler widely proclaimed that his intention was to destroy democracy - he accomplished his goal.

ICSD is no villain, and references to Hitler are always boring, unless, you know, you're talking about 1930s–1940s Europe. Here's the thing about Hitler references: they're boring no matter who uses them.

ICSD is a true believer, relishing in the defeat of moderation. Paradoxically, declaring that that this compromise could have worked, but not in its current form. As if his "allies" will permit any other form.

True believers are many unpleasant things, but they aren't villains as such.

But I suppose for pragmatists and moderates, true believers are the real enemy, whether they be left, right, or loony. There's nothing like an idealist with the One Holy Truth (whatever its formulation) to do damage. And then pat themselves on the back for their wondrous accomplishment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You have no "allies" on this issue; you're either the catamite or the pimp, and I don't see you pimping.

So, which one are you?

We're damned if we do or don't. Refuse to join the populist "anything must be done" horde trumpeted to arms by the news media and you are sheeple. Join them? sheeple. Join them here but not there? sheeple.

We have to create some solidarity, otherwise we are adrift and vulnerable to bigger lobby groups. My solidarity is with the gun rights groups, your is with the "extreme ideological moderates" who seek moderation as an ideological imperative, damned the issue.

The real summary is that our side benefits from status quo in the a hostile environment created by the tragedy. Your side didn't. Neither did the radical gun control side. If you feel like you've gained an electoral mandate for the mid-terms, we'll see how that plays our for you when the time comes. The gun lobby won this major battle because they were engaged and united.

[Montmorency]

I've made my intentions extremely clear here.

Yes.

I like expansive gun rights. I want to own the firearms that are banned in multiple states. There is strength in numbers and I would prefer to side with people who like guns than people who don't. People who forge their own way on everything and can't keep to the common goal lose.

Compromise when you have the upper hand, refuse discussions when you don't.

This debate has radicalized me further. I started out by wanting to compromise, saw the bad faith of the opposition first hand in NY and decided that they were too clever to work with and that we had to defeat them here.

You guys can gnash your teeth at this. I feel like this was hard fought. I've sent hundreds and hundreds of letters over the past 5 months, did you? Call and speak with your state and house reps? Never stopped engaging friends and family? Reading the bills?

Trust us in NY that see the political whims of government up-close. You should know that they don't believe that anyone should own guns. They are just biding their time.

Registration is the enemy.

Your opinions affect my rights

The Godwin was not at all frivolous. You have the very same attitude. Nor do I err in characterizing you as a "pit-dog".

You don't "want" background checks; you are merely willing to permit them so long as they don't hinder you in gun ownership.

With people like you, one must always be on guard: stand still, and you will take a mile; give an inch, and you will take everything.

Lemur, ICSD is indeed one of the "pimps". I warned you against taking him for a patsy: he's not. He's a canny zealot and he's well-aware of the strings available for him to pull. Such a one inevitably accrues an ever-greater amount of clout to himself.

For now, it's merely gun control - not honestly an issue whose outcome is crucial to society. Can you imagine the same antagonistic, ruthless, zero-sum perspective applied to the quest for political power itself? You don't have to - it's happened before.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You don't "want" background checks; you are merely willing to permit them so long as they don't hinder you in gun ownership.

Correct. I wouldn't fight for them beyond for ffl's, because I don't believe the loophole is as big as people suggest or in any way important to preventing these things. I would use it as currency in the event that I was attempting to further gun rights as the gun control crowd suggests that it holds some value to them in negotiation. There was no sense in giving it to them now when there was no benefit to do so. We will offer it up in order to get something that we want. In this situation, the gun control crowd was greedy. They thought that they could ride the tragedy on popular opinion and succeed without concession on the issue. They failed and left with the consolation prize that they *might have a new issue to fight us with at the midterms...

This was a victory to us because it showed that this country has become highly skeptical of gun control. Even a Democratic Senate couldn't pass a bill after the most awful imaginable gun crime had taken place. This bodes well for us in future ideological combat. If we begin to suffer at the polls over this, voila, we put reform up for a vote on the House floor on our terms. If needed, we can offer expanded background checks to shift voter perception of our reasonability.

Edit: just to be clear, I wholeheartedly support some ability to determine whether someone is capable of safe and lawful firearms ownership, beyond merely tolerating it I encourage it. The NICS check is a great tool and I think it is run well. I also encourage tough penalties for straw purchases and fines or incarceration for those who knowingly or negligently sell or gift to individuals who threaten the public peace.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think this idea is brilliant.

Federal background checks could be done by the buyer on their own computer's web connection. They would generate a keycode which would last in the system for 30 days. They could take a printout, like a boarding pass, to any seller who would double check it against their drivers license. The seller could confirm the keycode on his own web connection. If there were any problems within 30 days, a record would be available for confirmation.

This would extend the record keeping time period which would satisfy many on the left and it would eliminate the need for an ffl, buyer or seller to keep the physical record (which wont pass the house, didn't pass the democratic senate) which would satisfy us on the right. It would eliminate the debacle being experienced in NY where ffl's are refusing to transfer for the maximum $10 because of the record requirement and liability. Every single sale or gift would be required to have a key-code, unless in immediate family. I would support this.

Anyone who wants a NICS check to be done on EVERYONE to make unlawful buyers have a hard time will like this.
If you merely hate guns and want to make it harder on law abiding citizens, you might not like this - but you are unlikely to have success on this issue so take what you can get. We would have countless more background checks on EVERY sale and everyone could back it.

[Papewaio]

You say victory, I say quagmire.

The inability for a government of the people for the people to come up with a solution shows too much special interest groups and too little interest in the individual.

Just remember it a special interest group can swing it one way then another group can swing it back the other way. It can swing header and faster with a super PAC. Hardly equal votes on head count, just wallet. So if the money changes sides so will the votes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who says victory? I'm still fighting. We take victories where we can get them. I'd love to re-litigate this right now. In fact, in 2 months I'd like the house to start a base bill including the Coburn NICs expansion, the ToomeyManchin compromise, and ccw reciprocity. Let's do it

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about the coburn plan plus concealed carry reciprocity. That would pass both houses. Let's do that. 3 page bill, it wouldnt trigger a filibuster by the GOP, done

[Rhyfelwyr]

I noticed this on the BBC, thought it might be of interest to the American orgahs.

Defence Distributed fire first gun made from 3D printer parts

[gaelic cowboy]

I noticed this on the BBC, thought it might be of interest to the American orgahs.

Defence Distributed fire first gun made from 3D printer parts

What a clown that fella is "Oh nooooo it's about liberty" will ye go away with that will ye tis about cash in the claw an nothing more

[Rhyfelwyr]

What a clown that fella is "Oh nooooo it's about liberty" will ye go away with that will ye tis about cash in the claw an nothing more

Who knows, maybe it will mean different things to different people.

Speaking of money driving production... this is kind of off topic, but I wonder if technological developments like this could herald a revolution in materialism. 3D printers mean that material wealth can be created out of effectively nothing. Or, at least, a negligible production process that is infinitely repeatable at no extra cost, with a negligible amount of material.

When that's possible, it would surely mean that people could live in a world of material abundance?

When that happens, human nature being what it is I don't doubt value will still be assigned to things. But the emphasis will shift dramatically. Traditionally, things have generally been valued on their use value* - how far the product serves their needs.

If people can easily satisfy their material needs, then the value of products will be determined solely by their social value - and by that I mean not just things like status, but how people use products to express and relate themselves within society.

It will be a strange world, where people no longer identify through their work, family and community - in other words, their natural human relations. Instead, in a world where these things have been made redundant, they identify and relate through their material possessions.

For me, it is the ultimate expression of consumerism. Having been freed from material constraints, it reaches its terrifying conclusion. As natural relations like family and community are broken, natural boundaries like gender and culture are blurred. It is the ultimate form of alienation - with social structures having failed to express our humanity (our 'Gattungswesen' as one philosopher once termed it), instead they shape it artificially and transform it into something unnatural.

It is a strange and dystopian world. Where an individual is less a father, or brother, or farmer, or labourer, or Christian, or Muslim, or Scot, or a local - but rather an emo, a hipster, a Belieber, a 'gangsta', a punk, a chav, or whatever. A world where a large number of pictures from drunken nights out on your Facebook page is deemed a better indicator of your social success than a Master's Degree. Where your identification with mass-produced music labels is seen as an expression of your individuality - the triumph of mass, trash culture.

It is the replacement of work life, of family life, of community life, of national life, with just one new form of expression, of social existence - consumer life.

We're already half way there, but technology like the above could complete the leap.

*I'm not using that term in the Marxist sense here

[Rhyfelwyr]

Lovely sentiments Rhyf but it'll never happen. How do the currently empowered benefit over others from your scenario?

Just to check, by lovely sentiments, do you mean you like future I described, or do you agree with the issue that I took with it?

As for the currently empowered, how they feel about it is only relevant if they can actually control the technology. It would certainly be difficult - if all we needed for a product was to download the design and stick it on the home 3d printer, how do they control the downloads? The music industry never had much joy, it would take an unprecedented crackdown.

[Papewaio]

Facebook status is not a measure of success, it is a indicator of how much bread you got at the circus.

As for 3D printing it is about being self creators, ability to make things, ability to choose designs from around the world. You can fast prototype at home and then mass produce over the web. It is the new printing press.

[Montmorency]

I imagine that it will be extremely easy to regulate inputs...

[HopAlongBunny]

To quote a physics text: "Ain't nothin' free baby"

From another perspective, if it can't be monetized its almost as if it will cease to exist.

[gaelic cowboy]

Who knows, maybe it will mean different things to different people.

Speaking of money driving production... this is kind of off topic, but I wonder if technological developments like this could herald a revolution in materialism. 3D printers mean that material wealth can be created out of effectively nothing. Or, at least, a negligible production process that is infinitely repeatable at no extra cost, with a negligible amount of material.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When that's possible, it would surely mean that people could live in a world of material abundance?

When that happens, human nature being what it is I don't doubt value will still be assigned to things. But the emphasis will shift dramatically. Traditionally, things have generally been valued on their use value* - how far the product serves their needs.

If people can easily satisfy their material needs, then the value of products will be determined solely by their social value - and by that I mean not just things like status, but how people use products to express and relate themselves within society.

It will be a strange world, where people no longer identify through their work, family and community - in other words, their natural human relations. Instead, in a world where these things have been made redundant, they identify and relate through their material possessions.

For me, it is the ultimate expression of consumerism. Having been freed from material constraints, it reaches its terrifying conclusion. As natural relations like family and community are broken, natural boundaries like gender and culture are blurred. It is the ultimate form of alienation - with social structures having failed to express our humanity (our 'Gattungswesen' as one philosopher once termed it), instead they shape it artificially and transform it into something unnatural.

It is a strange and dystopian world. Where an individual is less a father, or brother, or farmer, or labourer, or Christian, or Muslim, or Scot, or a local - but rather an emo, a hipster, a Belieber, a 'gangsta', a punk, a chav, or whatever. A world where a large number of pictures from drunken nights out on your Facebook page is deemed a better indicator of your social success than a Master's Degree. Where your identification with mass-produced music labels is seen as an expression of your individuality - the triumph of mass, trash culture.

It is the replacement of work life, of family life, of community life, of national life, with just one new form of expression, of social existence - consumer life.

We're already half way there, but technology like the above could complete the leap.

*I'm not using that term in the Marxist sense here

I'm guessing such a world might be more flat than pyramidal, and fads and fashions are as old as the hills so I wouldn't worry there.

Such a place would be more like some of our earliest neolithic societies possibly even hunter gatherer.

We differentiate ourselves within the group by putting a chicken bone through our nose or or we replicate a cool new handheld gaming system( we have seen all this before).

[Papewaio]

3D printers and other CNC devices already are montonized and used in mass production.

What is happening is the equivalent of home laser printers with commercial printing presses already in place.

On top of this you can order via the web commerical 3D printing to use in manufacturing.

Here is a link about bicycle parts and how it's reduced time to market, reduced costs and is far greener (less material wasted and energy used).

http://www.3d-printers.com.au/2013/0...d-printed-hub/

[gaelic cowboy]

By lovely sentiments I meant that I think your extreme extrapolation of the consequences was neat. I don't agree with them, though--in fact, I take the opposite approach: If every household can produce whatever it wants in small quantities (bound only by resources or cash flow) then the middle-class is transformed into something that once again makes things. Perhaps a return of cottage industry, with a modern format?

Ultimately though, 3-D printers are like weed, cars that run on water, or powering cities with exotic forms of natural energy. If you can't monopolize it, it ain't gonna get too big.

you might not monetise it at present but that doesn't mean they cant be monetised eventually. (except 3d printers themselves are monetised)

the original steam engine couldn't be monetised until we figured it could drain water from coal mines, later we figured out it had other uses like trains, ships and so on and so on.

Also monetisation is not the primary driver IF all needs can be met

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right. I'm talking about the notion of every household being able to make whatever they want. It won't happen the way Rhyf fears, for good or ill. Cash-flow will always influence what a family can or can't make, and even in a society where every home was making something there would still be a division of labor. Certain families would make certain things for certain people and so forth. It wouldn't even need to be organized, it would just happen.

And more importantly, the government will severely restrict what can be made at home sooner or later. The laws that do the restricting will probably be influenced by lobbyists from the industries being threatened, rather than by the minds of the people voting on the law. So.. here in the USA, at least, I don't see much changing any time soon.

Well we won't know for certain until we know more of the particulars about the technology, but I certainly think that you are underestimating the social and economic impact it could have.

Pape brought up the printing press and noted its revolutionary role - now, consider the impact that just a handful of these across Europe has, and then consider that we are talking about having such a revolutionary device in potentially every household! As technology grows, its social impact seems to have a exponential, rather than a linear relationship.

You say it will be like the cottage industry and that there will be a division of labour - but that really is dependent on these printers being quite limited. What if downloading a print plan takes moments? What if you can programme it to print all the pieces for one product in order, leaving them ready for you to assemble? For all I know they might already do that.

And like gaelic cowboy said, "monetisation is not the primary driver IF all needs can be met". For the technology to be financially exploited, it would have to be rigidly controlled, and what would be the point anyway if it provides endless material wealth? All anybody would need is their little printer and that can have all the material goods they desire.

[/SPOIL]

I'm guessing such a world might be more flat than pyramidal, and fads and fashions are as old as the hills so I wouldn't worry there.

Such a place would be more like some of our earliest neolithic societies possibly even hunter gatherer.

We differentiate ourselves within the group by putting a chicken bone through our nose or or we replicate a cool new handheld gaming system( we have seen all this before).

It's nice when somebody can engage with my ramblings!

I see where you are coming from, but I think there would be some important differences in my case from your comparison. What you described is a pre-materialist society - where the production of material goods was so small that these goods remained expressions of natural human relations (eg, I'm from x family so I have a chicken bone through my face, or whatever).

In my dystopia, it's a post-materialist world - it is post-materialist in the sense that in the absence of any other social relations, materialism and material goods are no longer something distinct from the society that they exist in - materialism ceases to be the phenomena it once was. Material wealth is so abundant that it has no value as material wealth - it is just a form of social expression. But rather than expressing natural social relations as in the pre-materialist society, material goods form the actual basis of social relations. Like I said earlier, people will not identify by community or faith etc, but by the mass culture that they buy and reflect in their material possessions. Whether it's their clothes, or their CD's, what they collect, or whatever.

A strange and scary world...

Also, I should note that I came up with the terms pre or post materialism by myself, maybe other people use them for what might be other meanings, but that is coincidental. I'm not meaning to identify with them.