-3 votes

'Seinfeld' star Jason Alexander unleashes passionate 1,700 word tweet calling for gun control in wake of Colorado shooting

'Seinfeld' star Jason Alexander unleashes passionate 1,700 word tweet calling for gun control in wake of Colorado shooting

TV's legendary George Costanza takes to the web after Aurora, Colorado shooting


There was no yada-yada at all when “Seinfeld” star Jason Alexander’s took to Twitter with an impassioned — and certainly more than 140-character — call for a ban on assault-style weapons.

Alexander, in a message to his 135,725 followers, said the movie theater rampage that left 12 dead in Colorado convinced him to write the posting that drew both applause and insults.

“These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents,” Alexander wrote in the piece, which went up on Sunday. “They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/seinfeld-star-jason...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron Paul doesn't see people as mere members of groups

If you're going to dismiss someone by calling them a hollywood liberal then maybe you're on the wrong forum, because that kind of thinking doesn't belong here.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

That's not how 'collectivism'

That's not how 'collectivism' works sonny. A title, which in this case is very true, based on one's actions and not their 'race' or 'religion' is not 'collective', it's simply the way of defining someone. Paul uses the term 'Establishment', 'Neocons', and 'Bankers' on a broad stroke of people not because it's demeaning or collective, but because it simply is.

THIS post is the one that

THIS post is the one that takes issue with terms like "neo-con", "banksters", etc.

Collectivism paints groups of individuals with a broad brush meant to confine, label, insult and diminish them. The use of such terms by any one of us and by Ron Paul means that collectivist terms are being employed here, as well as by the opposition.

Collectivism is what happens whenever two people get together and one person feels excluded.... right?

In the Liberty movement, the term "collectivism" is commonly used to describe political views that we find personally abhorrent. But collectivist thinking dominates on all sides, if you look at it rationally.

Libertarianism is about the individual

Although even Ludwig Von Mises does not believe that actions of the individual occur in a vacuum.

Wikipedia's definition of collectivism:

"Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used and has been used as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history. Most societies contain elements of both collectivism and individualism."


So, collectivism emphasizes interdependence, while individualism emphasizes the opposite, but only a fool would suggest that there is no net effect caused by the combined and interdependent actions of individuals.

From the definition of "praxeology":

"Another conclusion that von Mises reached was that decisions are made on an ordinal basis. That is, it is impossible to carry out more than one action at once, the conscious mind being capable of only one decision at a time—even if those decisions can be made in rapid order. Thus man will act to remove the most pressing source of dissatisfaction first and then move to the next most pressing source of dissatisfaction. Additionally, von Mises dismissed the notion that subjective values could be calculated mathematically; man can not treat his values with cardinal numbers, e.g., "I prefer owning a television 2.5 times as much as owning a DVD player." As a person satisfies his first most important goal and after that his second most important goal, then his second most important goal is always less important than his first most important goal. Thus, the satisfaction, or utility, that he derives from every further goal attained is less than that from the preceding goal. This assumes, of course, that the goals are independent, which is not always the case—for example, acquiring the television may enable one to pursue the goal of watching a documentary on biology, which may make one decide to study biology, which opens the goal of writing a research paper, and so on. In human society, many actions will be trading activities where one person regards a possession of another person as more desirable than one of his own possessions, and the other person has a similar higher regard for his colleague's possession than he does for his own. This assertion modifies the classical economic view about exchange, which posits that individuals exchange goods and services that they both appraise as being equal in value. This subject of praxeology is known as catallactics."


And "catallactics":

"Friedrich Hayek used the term catallaxy to describe "the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market.""


Since it's not letting me

Since it's not letting me edit my post, I'll clarify. I understand that full and well, and on my own personal level, I consider 'political affiliations' a simple classification. I know full well Jason Alexander has the potential to be independent minded, but I'm aware that he's spewing nonsense of a 'collective' in this instance.

Since you're response was quite, indirect, I'm unsure if you're attacking me or not, it seems simply to be a 'statement' of things. If it is, forgive me.

I wasn't attacking anyone

I wasn't attacking anyone with that post, actually. The post was meant to inform, since I have seen some use the word "collectivism" and it was not apparent to me that they knew the definition.

Just checking, I'm used to

Just checking, I'm used to people like Ashman on here using half-directed replies as attacks. Thanks for clarifying.