So being in a facist (or libertarian) oligarchy with no accountability is better than being in a social democracy with many services provided by a government which is accountable?

Regulations are there for a purpose - for example, the FDA was created to save lives. Over regulation is stifling and encourages rent-seeking behavior, but under-regulation cause us to revert back to the previous, non-desirable state. So we need to find a balance.

As you said, the current system is breaking down, but not because of the system itself. It's because it hasn't been maintained. As citizens we should be more involved in ensuring that the system is kept in check, and that powerful interests, both private and public, is kept in the balance.

There will always be people in power. That's why good government attempts to balance this power so that the result is beneficial to society as a whole.

Power concentrated in the hands of organisations such as multi-national corporations (or even less omniscient entities such as car dealership networks) is no better than being in the hands of an autocratic and abusive regime.

For us in the developed world, at least we have some sort of say over policies implemented by a government which is in theory accountable to the people. Why not improve this system so that is is *more* accountable? Rather than advocating for it's dissolution and letting someone (e.g. private actors, which will always be less accountable) fill in the power vacuum?

Pretty much the most insightful post on this topic as of yet.

Objectivitism (i.e. Aynd Rand) is basically a pipe dream similar to Communism. Human nature dictates that those with power will always try to exploit the weak. The basic tenants of good government is to balance this equation in favor of the common good.

In terms of crime figures, yes, but they do definitely poison the debate on sensible measures to ensure that guns have responsible people as owners.

Furthermore, I wasn't really focusing on the actual killing by fringe anti-government elements, but the very presence of these people in the debate and their rather extreme attitude poisons the discussion around guns.

These people are of the type that believe more guns actually decrease gun crime. That's an absurd position that is proven to be wrong study after study.

So these people are nobodies now (this one just happened by the way, complete with a Gadsden flag)?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06...

Whataboot this (spread of American values north)?

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

And this?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/te...

Of course, this -

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/p...

You are right. To put things in perspective though, the requirement to keep ammunition centrally at the armoury is relatively recent (2007), and even before, gun crime in Switzerland is relatively rare.

First of all, the level of firearm ownership in an area does have an effect on the firearm homicide rate. It correlates -

http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

Violent crime has gone down in most of the industrialized world over the past 3 decades, regardless of whether a country restricts firearms or not -

http://rgambler.com/2013/11/03...
http://jpo.wrlc.org/bitstream/...
http://www.economist.com/news/...

However, America's violent crime rate is much higher than most developed countries -

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

The growing consensus (in public policy circles at least) these days is that it is not gun ownership that is causing this violence, but the American gun culture -

http://www.businessweek.com/ar...
http://world.time.com/2012/12/...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/t...

The problem is that we keep looking at gun ownership rates The Swiss has high levels of gun ownership, but they also have a very strict culture of gun safety and training. Men are required to undergo military training and be in the reserves for 10 years, keeping their sealed army-issued firearm at home or in the Zeughaus, for use in case of invasion. Thus, they have lots of guns, but little gun crime.

Now, the question is how do you measure gun culture? In America you have this issues with two main groups poisoning the culture - the gangs and the "don't tread on me" types. How can you design a study to measure the effect of this culture on gun crime?

IIRC, the Nexus 4 only has the hardware for one of the LTE bands (Band 4), by sheer coincidence due to the part used for the air interface. Google said they disabled LTE support on the device as a cost saving measure, but possibly also under LG pressure to differentiate the Nexus from their top-end phones. Most LTE phones support at least 5 or 6 of the bands to ensure that they are compatible with most providers in that region.

You are right, most Scottish degrees are over four years, but there are certain non-honours degrees (MA) and special accelerated degrees which crams the 4-year program into 3 years.

Woah, easy there tiger... Submitter wanted to buy the daughter a phone. I was suggesting maybe it's better for her to get it herself when she is in the UK.

Well, you missed the point of my post then (and the submitter's also)! There are loads of 3G world phones. It's the whole topic of 4G world phones that we're discussing.

It's a lot different if you are a student and they usually let you take out a contract if show them paperwork for your university degree course. When I was a Canadian student in the UK, that's how it worked.

It's a world phone for normal GSM/WCDMA/HSPA, etc. But not for 4G/LTE.

If she is spending most of term time in Scotland, why not ask her to get a phone in the UK? It's a lot cheaper - most of the time top end phones are free on a 24-month contract. Assuming that she is going to Uni and not college - her course would be at least 3 years anyway. Unless, of course, it's just an exchange program.