Most likely. However, war might contribute to overall happiness of our society in some way (see f.ex. the great depression).

Whoa man, $170? Do you know these people? Is there any proof whatsoever that they will make any effort to go through with the cause stated on the website?

I'm gonna stop selling bridges

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Wave-Revolutions-History/dp/019512121X

Recommended.

Have you guys ever heard of the ancient Andean irrigation systems? We're talking three thousand years old. When researchers re-built part of the irrigation system based on ancient specifications, they found that it was far more productive than a system using modern fertilizers and machines. It could produce 10 metric tons of potatoes per hectare, compared with 1-4 metric tons on nearby modern fields. It worked at the world record 12,000 feet above sea-level. Plus, land never had to lie fallow with this system.

No, it's not some tabloid pipe-dream; this comes from the mouth of John M. Murrin in the 5th edition of the textbook "Liberty, Equality, Power -- A History of the American People."

There. Solution #1: listen to the smart ancient Indians who found no use for the wheel. Err, Native Americans. Err, First Americans. Err...

Because the people aren't starving. There's an excellent book titled The Great Wave which shows a strong correlation between food prices and revolutions. During the French Revolution, many people had a clear cut choice: starve to death and watch your family do the same, or starve while fighting the aristocracy (and maybe steal some of their bread). I believe that if conditions get so poor in the US that people can no longer afford food, then people will find a way to revolt. At that level, it's simple survival.

Lol guys, we already have a 30 page gun debate thread

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society. The meaning of life is happiness; individuals seek it. I personally will seek the path of life which leads to my being the most happy. The goal of a perfect society is also most happiness; thus, the socioeconomic systems which make people the happiest are the ones which should be chosen. Denmark and Norway are doing a goddamn fine job of it.

Repraps are a "relatively" old concept. Relative to printing AR-15 lowers.
"open source automated physical object development" --> RepRap

Now simply drop the apostrophes

Iff I have no empathy for you, and the other guy also has no empathy for you, and we have no empathy for your family, and we would have more happiness than your family, friends, and associates would have sadness, yes. Obviously, the people who have empathy for you would be sad, and that would likely "overcompensate" for the happiness of me and one other.

Care to elaborate? All I see is money coming in and paper leaving. Oh, and dangerous people who can't tell the accelerator from the brake leaving with that paper.

Fixed
That may be the case here, but it may not always be the case in every place.

lolok
First off, eliminating empathy entirely is probably not possible.
Second, torture doesn't always bring people happiness.
However, if torturing me for the rest of my life would make you and one other person happy for the rest of your lives, then I volunteer.

What prevents me from claiming that I'm an insurance company, then licensing random people for a $2 fee?

Also true. In a world of absolutes where neither party had any empathy for the other, the more perfect society is the one in which the proletariat are happy, simply because there are more of them. A thousand happy workers with no empathy for the unhappy Monseigneur constitutes more total happiness than a happy Monseigneur and a thousand unhappy workers. The Monseigneur's happiness is not worth more than that of a single worker.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.
Again, empathy is not universal. I have more empathy for family and friends than some random guy, and more for aforementioned random guy than for the random guy who makes a fortune by forcing child labor on cheap shoes. In fact, empathy is largely malleable; the audience tends to empathize with the protagonist of a story even when the protagonist is a criminal. Conversely, the audience scorns he who is portrayed in a negative light. The audience sometimes even cheers for the torturing of an oppressive dictator, etc.

So assuming I live in a cardboard box, I probably couldn't give two shits about Bill Gates' 20 billion extorted loss if that loss gets me an apartment and some Cabernet Sauvignon.

Oh boy, France is quite the hot topic society wise

I find myrkul's data suitable enough (though there may be more firearm accidents e.g. child shot self in foot than car *off* accidents such as child climbed into trunk). Cars are pretty dangerous. They are huge and sometimes explode. They careen through the streets and can exert forces of 300 times gravity's pull in a head-on collision. For reference, astronauts have to train extensively to withstand 7 G's. Meanwhile guns don't get shot very often.

What I have yet to concede is licensing.

If mandatory licensing for vehicles was removed, there would be more automotive deaths. Parents would think their 12 year old Jimmy is mature enough to drive on the highway. People would forego education, etc. Additionally, mandatory seatbelts seem to have worked wonders. Graduated licenses have also worked wonders. I feel more confident on the roads of New York State knowing that the legal operators of vehicles have received or are receiving many hours of supervised driving instruction time.

Actually, you can probably teach them to handle guns just fine. You're also not a bad driving instructor, most likely. Licensing != training. Licensing is where you prove that you have had adequate training.

A parent can teach a child how to drive. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in a car accident. Voila, the child is now a legal car driver.

A parent can teach a child how to properly handle guns. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in firearm accidents. Voila, the child is now a legal gun carrier and can enjoy all the benefits of self defense yada yada.

In some fields, including driver education, the training course can optionally be provided by a private organization which is in turn certified by the gov't. That's cool too. Competition and all that, etc.

--------

Certainly, criminals can get guns illegally. Cars too. I hope, however, that the majority of car-owners own them legally; same goes for guns. Therefore, I'd prefer that the majority of car-owners (the legal ones) be suitably educated in not killing people; same goes for guns. Most people I know have no problem with needing to carry a driver's license.

Then I must concede that, in general, cars are more dangerous than guns. I have yet to concede that removal of mandatory licensing for automobiles would lower the accident rate. I also have yet to concede that gun accidents are insignificant, ignorable, or less frequent than chainsaw accidents.

Hopefully the conceding of a point is something new in this thread and it inspires you to enlighten me further.

Religion was mentioned on the internet. What did you expect?

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

That's because there are more cars and more drivers for more hours in the day than guns and gun owners. Additionally, without certification and regulated safety devices, there would be even more car deaths.

Makes the sum of happiness the greatest. Most people most happy.lolok