Yes, you might look into some other countries that could work (though depending on distance it might be more difficult for your oldest if he can't move with you). It isn't easy but I know a couple of people from the US who have moved to Europe.

Depending on your plans for your 18 year old is (or his own) you might also check about university entrance requirements in the countries you are looking at. They can vary quite a lot. In some cases it may be best for the young adult to stay behind in the country of origin and finish their education there.

Just as a matter of curiosity: Let's assume that you had a choice - give up your guns (which may limit your ability to hunt/defend yourself with a weapon) and in exchange the number of deaths by shooting would drop by 50 % (obviously this is not realistic but let's assume). Would you do it? What if you got to keep a limited number of guns (let's say one for hunting and one for defense purposes per person). Would you do it then? I guess my question is whether your reluctance concerning gun control is that you think it would not work or whether you believe your freedom shouldn't be limited no matter what. First, I wanted to say that I am so sorry this has happened and I hope you feel better soon. As far as your question, I don't think violent movies/games have a huge impact (though I may be wrong). I think a bigger problem is media/information. Seeing incidents like this on TV etc. may well make someone else think of doing the same. And of course guns have just gotten much more efficient and the population more dense.

But why? Why would members of one country be significantly more aggressive/violent than others? Does it have to do with culture? Society? Education? Religion?

I disagree. Sure, it could (and would) still happen. But so much more often. How often do we read about accidents with guns? How about suicide with guns (yes, people will find another way but not all and not as easily)? I live in a country with stricter gun laws. Some years ago, we did have a significant school schooting. Turns out the teenager's family were members of a gun club and had guns at home. Yes, the boy would still have been disturbed if that had not been the case. But I doubt he would have had access as easily and likely nothing (or very little) would have happened. Please remember that I am not even advocating getting rid of guns altogether. I do think there are arguments to be made for hunting/defense reasons. When it comes to laws we should ask ourselves whether a) they would be a benefit for society as a whole without seriously infringing on individual rights and b) if they can be enforced.

Okay, if your premise is that the huge number of deaths by gun in the US has little to do with the number of guns but is due to other factors only, I can see being against gun control. But I have to say if that is the case you all have some major, major issues to work on as it would indicate the US being significantly more violent/aggressive etc. than other countries. Of course noone thinks that limiting guns (and I am quite okay with keeping a limited number for self-defense/hunting) would make everything perfect. That's ridiculous. But guns are more efficient than most other means so it does make a big difference not in intent but outcome. Yes, if gun control was enacted it would limit your freedom somewhat. But you are also limited by many other laws or regulations. And none of the benefits you mentioned is a benefit for society/others. They just pertain to your (not you personally, but you the gun enthusiast) personal convenience/enjoyment.

I just don't get those of you saying gun control doesn't work. Obviously, it works - all over the world. This is not a theoretical or philosophical question. When I say it works I don't mean that there is no more evil/violence. Of course there is. People get illegal guns. They use other methods. But it is much more difficult to get illegal guns and other methods are less effective. Isn't it worth saving some lives even if you can't save all? I would much rather some crazy person kills three people by slashing their throats with a knife or injures two with an axe than someone killing over 50 and injuring another 500 with a gun (and no special skills for using it). And when I say "gun control" I don't mean the right to have a gun needs to be eliminiated completely. Why not chose a handful of weapons (small handguns, some hunting rifle) and after a decent background check anyone can own a couple? That would be plenty for hunting/defending/killing vermin etc. Yes, it would limit people's freedom but we enact rules and laws that restrict freedom all the time. That is how society works.

I'd be very, very surprised.

Huh, I wonder if we kind of know the same person (someone I went to school with has a wife who is related to a Hollywood composer married to a celebrity)? If so it would be funny how small the world is.

I used to live in LA so I probably at least saw a bunch but I am horrible with faces - I am lucky if I can recognize my own kids in a crowd, let alone anyone I have never met. The only instance I can remember: About 25 years ago I was in LA and took one of the Warner Brothers Studio tours. You went in a small group (maybe 8 people) and they drove you through some sets etc. in a golf cart. We passed a small group of people working (they weren't filming right then but huddled together, talking etc.). I looked at them and thought to myself: "Hollywood isn't as exciting as one might think. These people look perfectly ordinary." I thought they were all sound/camera people etc. but as we drove on the other people in the group were way excited as apparently Dustin Hoffman had been part of the group. I neither recognized him nor had any idea that it was someone famous.

This is pretty embarrassing but I get out so little I have no clue how many smoke or not (unless they are hanging around outside which really only teenagers do). Pretty sure restaurants etc. are smoke-free. We went to some beer gardens this summer and my ds complained about the smoke (I grew up in a household with smokers so don't notice as much). Based on some remarks of my son, quite a number of teenagers do smoke (not sure whether regularly or just tried it).

I remember quite a number of years ago when visiting North Carolina I was quite surprised to see the different attitude towards smoking compared to other places in the US (as in ashtrays in fast food restaurants). I suppose it is because tobacco is/was the livelihood of quite a number of people in the area.

I don't really have an issue with taxes (well, I hate them but philosophically I am fine with them) but I don't think you can successfully over-charge for goods in a proper market. There are markets that by their nature or by circumstance do not function well and in those cases I do think the government needs to intervene.

I do agree with what you wrote above for the most part (there are instances in which market barriers are too high to make it easy to allocate according to demand) - my explanation wasn't what I think does/should happen but what I think bluegoat meant as people had different ideas what "profit" meant.

I do agree with you up to a certain point. But I think that these extra profits (or whatever you want to call it) serve as a major incentive. Maybe I don't need a fancy car or big mansion (and maybe in some cases I don't "deserve" it based on my contribution) but wanting it (and having some chance of possibly achieving it) is the reason many work harder/more than they would otherwise. Obviously, this is not always good as it can lead to overwork etc. but I do think overall it is good for the economy/development. Actually, I think that is one of the main problems in communism - there is little incentive to work substantially harder than necessary which is detrimental to society as a whole. Yes, we can say nurses are just as important as doctors and their contribution just as valuable (I am not disagreeing with this) but it takes a lot longer/more work to become a doctor (this is more pronounced where I live than in the US). Why should I spend 10 years longer in school, spending money on education instead of earning it, if I can't expect to make (much) more money later? Even if you factor in these additional costs there is still timing effect to consider. Obviously, people do not just decide due to expected earnings but it is a big consideration for most. For me, the potential to become rich (unfair as it may be) is a major motivational factor/represents hope. It isn't even that I badly want to be rich or am doing anything that will lead to riches. But somewhere deep down I feel that if I wanted to I could probably get there (yeah, I am rather optimistic in general). And that makes a difference to me. I would find it very depressing to live in a society where there is no chance for significant advancement. I do realize that people do not have the same chances when they start out and do feel it is crucial to even chances as much as possible though. I think there is a difference in how you and bluegoat interpret profit. It sounds like for you profit is anything above your costs (and in that case you would be in trouble if your business didn't generate any profits). Bluegoat I think considers the money you get (or maybe more exactly the money you should get) as a cost. So let's say you earn 100 and have costs (computer, advertising, employees etc.) of 75. Let's also say with your abilities etc. you could reasonably expect to get a job that pays 15 (as an employee for someone else) and let's add on another 5 because you are taking on more risk etc. So the "cost" of your work would be 20. Total cost (including you) would be 95. Then 5 would be the extra profit. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with you getting that extra 5 BUT if you didn't because you just charged 95 you'd not go broke and be just fine.

Well, so far so good.

University here is basically free and the government gives money (half as an interest free loan/half as a gift) to cover living expenses if parents do not earn enough. However, if parents do earn enough children have a legal right to be supported during college. Personally, I think parents should pay for a decent college education (i.e. normal duration, school with average cost) if financially possible.

Of course it would be a re-distribution of some kind from people with more money to those with less. Depending on how UBI is structured it might not have a huge negative impact as society already redistributes to the poorest group (via welfare benefits of various kinds) because society has decided that it is for the public good not to have people starve. So that part of UBI (going to people with little or no income) would not change the current situation much (a slightly higher cost might be offset by streamlining/less administration expense). How much impact it otherwise would have depends largely on how income is distributed in that society (percentages of low vs. middle vs. high earners) and how it is paid for. Even though everyone gets it, only a small segment will truly have the whole amount in addition as it will be offset by higher taxes for other groups. If everyone for example receives a UBI of 800 only a certain group will have 800 more than before. People with middle incomes would probably reap some benefit (let's say they get UBI of 800 but their taxes go up by 400 so they only net 400) and at the very top it would be just an expense. UBI could be structured so that it peters out fairly quickly (i.e. people with slightly above average incomes have a small increase in taxes) or to really redistribute money (i.e. top earners will pay the bulk of expense). Well, you also have to set your prices according to the market. I work as a freelancer and there is no point in me calculating how high my rates should be and setting them there. I will have to set them to be competitive or I won't get jobs. Of course I have to check and see whether the rates I can get make it worth doing the job. If not, I need to find a different occupation. But if I can up my income (e.g. by choosing only jobs with higher rates or by working faster) than I will do so. I am not going to tell a client that I can do the job for a lower rate just because it might still be enough to cover my costs.

Sounds pretty wild - based on recent threads, I bet there are some members here on the board! :lol:

Maybe there is another facility in OC that he was talking about? If so, I would stay in the Orange County area and visit Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, the Queen Mary in Long Beach, Laguna Beach, or San Juan Capistrano (basically any of the beach areas around there). If you are up in Westwood for the hospital though anyway I would probably visit the Getty Museum (beautiful views and a cool atmosphere in addition to the art) or Santa Monica. Hope you have some time to enjoy what LA has to offer! Once you get over the distances it is a great city.

I do agree with what you are saying. That is basically what I meant with everyone will try to get the most out of their investment - not just money but also other aspects. Maybe it makes me feel good to rent out my apartment to a poorer family even though I could get more money from someone else. Or maybe I feel there is less risk renting long-term to a family than in short-term lets. Or maybe the good opinion of my friends/neighbors is important to me and makes me invest more in a property than absolutely necessary. Society does and should exert some pressure on individual behaviour. There are lots of things that will influence our decision but monetary gain is certainly an important aspect. I just feel that people should be free to determine what gives them the most value. I do not want the government enforcing decisions unless absolutely necessary for the public good as I do think the market is an excellent way to allocate resources in most cases (though there are exceptions e.g. health care). And I think it is okay if people find a balance between what is best for them and what is optimal for society. So if I had an apartment to rent out (I wish) I might rent it out to a nice family that needs to find a place to live instead of a single person who would maybe pay a bit more (or pose less risk as far as wear and tear is concerned). But I probably wouldn't rent it to someone who needs a home but is likely to not be able to pay rent. The fact that human behaviour is influenced by so many considerations and is hard to predict is one of the main reasons I am uncertain about UBI. I am hesitant to make such a big step with potentially huge impacts without more of an idea what exactly would happen.

Lots of stuff! But as you are only there for a short time I would concentrate on what is close to where you are staying (unless there is something you have always wanted to see). LA is huge so you might have to drive half the day to see some of the sights. If you let us know what area you will be in we can easier make a recommendation.

I guess I can see your point and you may be right but it wouldn't have occured to me as being tacky.

As to your first question: Here we have something kind of like UBI - it is a basic income that is giving to all adults who are willing/able to work but can't find a job (or if they make less than the basic amount they are paid the difference). There are issues with this but they aren't necessarily the ones people worry about in this thread (mostly people complain that the amount is too low to provide in an adequate way). The way it is calculated is by giving a set amount per person in the household (different according to grown-up/ age of child). It does not matter whether or not you are married but only the living arrangements. I don't think it encourages couples to have two households as you are probably better off financially if you share a place (there are different components in the calculation so I think a couple does get less than two individual households but realistically they also need way less when sharing a home). As for the second, I think it depends on the people. I am also from a blue-collar family but as far as I can tell working is valued quite highly. Most of my relatives (cousins, uncles/aunts) have/had jobs that are not exactly glamorous (trash pick up, cleaning offices, construction work etc.). They don't necessarily enjoy the work itself. But unless their health dictates otherwise (and these jobs are hard on bodies so that does happen) they wouldn't dream of just staying home and collecting benefits even if they would not make a lot less (I assume, no idea how much they earn though). I do think we need more social programs than in the past for two reasons a) the chasm has gotten so much wider. Not so long ago, many didn't have indoor plumbing, college educations, great nutrition etc. Now many do but others don't. It is a lot worse to be poor if others are so much better off. Not only is this unfair but if it isn't addressed it is detrimental to society and could ultimately lead to a complete break-down b) society has changed. We might not like it but it has. There is a lot less support from family/neighbors/church. Something has to make up for this. As far as tracking in schools is concerned: I am not a huge fan (we have it here) but it has its advantages. Not everyone needs or wants a college education. There are great vocational jobs and students at these schools can be successful too. Not everyone at a lower track school has to end up a fast food worker and there are probably fast food workers that are happier than some lawyers. Even more important, at least here there are quite a lot of ways to change tracks later on. So someone finishing at a lower track school can add on a year and then transfer to an intermediate school that will get him/her to university. This used to be a lot more difficult but has improved a lot in the last while. This is not to say that I prefer tracking to no tracking. It has advantages and disadvantages. But it doesn't kill all chances to improve oneself either.

It is not so much that I think it is the purpose of economic activity to enrich individuals. I just think this is the reality of human nature. So I am not saying so much that it should be like this but that I think it unlikely that it will work differently. And when I say that everyone should be free to maximize their own "profit" that doesn't just mean money. Many/most people do get something out of being charitable/good. People have different opinions about risk. Or maybe the opinion of their friends/peers is important to them. For larger companies acting in bad faith can have a significant negative impact on business. And who wants to live in a polluted area/world? So there are lots of "natural" forces at work that help to steer people's economic decisions. I do think the state has a very important role to fulfill (including laws that will curb behavior that makes economic sense for individuals but is detrimental). I just feel that states can do more harm than good if they interfere too much. Sure, if every business looked to the needs of the community that would be great. And if every person acted in the way I think Jesus wanted us to we would live in something close to paradise. But I don't see that happening any time soon (which doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it). Which communist states are you thinking of? I can't really think of many any more and definitely not ones that seem successful...