Did i misread your paragraph about dealing with suicidal people or didn't i? That's the part that was most interesting to me, and i'm writng this on a tablet so i have to be economocal with my replies.
Did i misread your paragraph about dealing with suicidal people or didn't i? That's the part that was most interesting to me, and i'm writng this on a tablet so i have to be economocal with my replies.
Draco my boy, don't give in, it's what they want. FIGHT THE POWER!
You have to concentrate to talk on the phone? There's something seriously wrong with you.Originally Posted by Draco
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
And i don't think you're heartless, i just don't think you gave the problem inherent in ziggy's question enough thought. I think you've been seduced by the deceptive simpliciy of the philosophy you're taching yourself to embrace.
A road getting closed due to a fatality causing my business to lose staff and customers, thousands of people suffering delays for hours etc, etc is affecting my rights. I have a right to use that road which because someone couldn't be arsed to plug a seat-belt in got affected.
Seat belts protect my rights to use the road. Anyway, as discussed the roads are the governments property as such they can set the rules. You said the property owner can set the rules so why doesn't that apply when the property owner is the government?The only rules the government should have the 'right' to set are those that protect and guarantee the liberties of each individual who is a citizen of that country. The likes of speed limits, alcohol consumption levels, are permissible for obvious reasons, but the likes of seat belt laws are not, for reasons that I've already stated.
The road is not their property, its the governments. You don't have to use a seatbelt on private roads, only state-owned roads.Well if it's not obvious from all the regulations that Western governments have introduced, all these anti-this, anti-that laws (such as anti-discrimination), the type that take away the will of a person to act as they wish, to do what they want with their body, to do what they want with their property (SO LONG AS the individual is not infringing on the rights of others), then I don't know how else the government is getting bigger?
The law says if you crash into someone from behind it's your fault because you should have kept a safe distance away from them. By escalating a minor fault (not a safe enough distance to stop) into a major one (vehicular manslaughter) is quite serious is it not?But how do seat belt laws offer that protection? Is it because of the whole manslaughter charges? It doesn't make sense for someone to be arrested on the grounds that they hit another car in which the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt and subsequently dies (unless of course it can be proven that they broke the law in some way beforehand, say driving over the speed limit, or they were drunk, etc).
Food standards, pest control products etc, etc are regulated. Try using asbestos as a building material. Food establishments don't just have strict standards they need to meet, but regular (and unannounced) inspections to see that they're maintaining them. Chemicals are strictly regulated too.Well why stop there? Why not support a law whereby fast food (or anything remotely related to unhealthy food) is strictly limited, because a lot of people end up becoming obese and die early deaths as a result. Or lets make pest control products illegal too, because what if a child finds some rat poison in the cupboard and decides to eat it all?
Hang on why is it important to preserve the "right" to smoke on the street?
I think it should be banned on public streets.
So you can't show me, it's just obvious because *rant included*
Look, I'm not trying to argue, I'd say it's rather ambiguous and not obvious at all, I'd have big troubles trying to quantify this and compare it to earlier periods with different environments. There's a zillion factors to take into account. Furthermore, I'm not saying it's not bigger (relative), I'm questioning the certainty it is. My point is, if this is going to be a major factor in forming your opinion, it could be beneficial (for yourself, not for me. I have no stake in this) if you could actually found this on anything more than what sounds to be a gutfeeling. I didn't expect you to actually show me how it's gotten bigger because that would take quite a bit of research which would have to include a large number of factors which have to be weighed. (Example, making the point that before the internet there weren't any government bodies which were involved with the internet, or making the case that when there were fewer Americans there was a smaller government in absolute terms. Or that in the 50's there weren't as many laws with regard to traffic. None of these are because of an insidious government hungering for power, but simply because times and demands have changed.)
That's not an answer to my questions.This is the best part of our democratic world: the majority always wins, even if they're voting to deny a person their right to marry whoever they want, it's all ok because voting is great!
I notice you are replying in a dense number of slippery slopes and strawmen. Probably because you feel you are defending your opinion against mine. I was actually expecting a reply like: "well sure in some cases the gov has a role in society, but that doesn't mean ...". As I said, I was merely curious, but since you did include the slippery slope.Let them be. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the government to bring them back into reality. This is what I meant by the government getting bigger little by little. You allow for one aspect of control (say, assisting those with suicidal tendencies) and next thing you know, you're being told that you can't smoke on the street, or you can't marry someone, or you're not allowed to deny service to another person because there's a law that says they're a 'protected minority.'
Do you actually feel that the same motivation for a government agency who's job it is to help people with suicidal tendencies, can be used for not allowing people to marry whoever they want? And be careful, the danger with slippery slopes is, they can be used against you. Other people might respond to "can't marry someone", with "so you want people to be able to marry 12 year olds?". And you'd have to explain that's different since it's not between consenting adults. but be aware that is the tactic you (and Lewk) are using here. Gov interferes in some way, so the "logical" ( and I use the word quite Lewk-like IE wrongly) next step is gov telling you where to take a shit.
Another thing I noticed:
This is the best part of our democratic world: the majority always wins
or you're not allowed to deny service to another person because there's a law that says they're a 'protected minority.
Seems there is a way for democracy to also protect the rights of minorities. Even overdoing it in your opinion by the sound of it.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Right. Please point out to me where I engage in hack'n'slash.
You're actually unable to comprehend the concept of "moderation", are you? All is black and white with you, isn't it? Either - or, nothing in between. And your answer doesn't even make any sense.Ok, how about I don't speak out, and let everyone else speak out, but really I want the laws abolished, what about then?
Oh wait, you're not going to reply to me anymore for some childish reason, grow up.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Seat belts (especially today's lap+shoulder belts) keep the passenger from going through the windshield, or catapulting within the car, or being ejected from the car. You don't really think auto makers just put them in to restrict your freedom do you?
Now take an older car pre-1960, or an antique or vintage car. No seat belts. Maybe a first generation lap belt. Also no head restraints or air bags. Pretend you're in charge of Public Highway Safety....what would you do about owners driving these cars on the roadway? If you're the insurance company guy in charge of Auto Liability Guidelines....what would you do?
Distraction is distraction. Try driving a car with the radio on, a crying baby in the back, or kids bickering about who touched whom. Can you hear the fire engine siren, are you totally focused on driving? How about drinking hot coffee that spills on your lap? Again, sounds like you're okay with restrictions on your freeeedom, if it comes from a private company but not the government. You're using the gummint as teh evil scapegoat, but it doesn't pass the smell test. How about....Of course not. You don't concentrate on your radio, or you don't concentrate on your baby whilst driving, the same way that you would whilst talking on a mobile phone.
Of course I'll object.
The insurance companies are privately owned though.
Private insurance gets together with high tech and auto makers, creates and installs a monitor connected to the computer system, that can record your engine speed, pedal action, braking patterns, wheel and steering movements, and any impacts? A black box that records and recreates an accident, that you may/may not know is there. A digital recording that the insurance company can analyze and present in court, to determine if you were at fault for an accident?
Libertarians like to use that slippery slope argument, but it falls apart fast. No one is forced to eat fast food like they're forced to share the highway. Some chemicals have been banned because they're so toxic, others are regulated for professional use only. What could possibly be your objection to that?Well why stop there? Why not support a law whereby fast food (or anything remotely related to unhealthy food) is strictly limited, because a lot of people end up becoming obese and die early deaths as a result. Or lets make pest control products illegal too, because what if a child finds some rat poison in the cupboard and decides to eat it all?
Nothing is black and white. Not even a libertarian philosophy.
What a silly idea it is to claim "Freedom" in relation to seatbelt laws.
In order to drive a vehicle you must have a drivers license, to do this you must pass certain criteria and obviously in order to keep that license you must obey the laws governing road use (including seatbelts).
Any claims about freedom are just smoke and mirrors, any fool that thinks not wearing a seatbelt is a rebellious declaration of their unbridled freedom should make damn sure they are prepared for a lifetime of being fed through a tube.
Fucking idiots.
Here's another example of why some freedoms aren't really freedoms at all, they are just individuals being selfish, stupid, ignorant cunts:
Some years back they introduced laws in Australia making it mandatory for certain heavy vehicles (Semi-trailers, Doubles, Triples & Road Trains) to be fitted with a speed limiting device. Since the maximum legal speed for all of those vehicles is 100km/h anywhere in the country that is the speed they are limited to. (Tolerance of 3km/h)
When these laws were first proposed there were also murmurings about "Freedom" from the lunatic fringe but now that we no longer see 50 meter long 150 tonne vehicles doing 160km/h on our roads killing swathes of people even the most ardent defender of freedom can see the sense in this law. They have now taken these transport laws several steps further by introducing restrictions on the hours these truckies can do - log books must be completed or else large fines will be forthcoming. This has reduced the number of fatigue related accidents significantly and to a large extent cleaned up the transport industry. Most transport companies in Australia have also adopted a self regulated Code of Practice that includes mandatory drug and alcohol testing of drivers.
Technically these were also minute restrictions of what could be construed as "Freedom" but guess what - too fucking bad. Lives have been saved, millions of dollars have been saved and an industry once dominated by amphetamine fueled cowboys is now relatively clean.
Like it or not, if you exist in a civilised society you have an obligation to abide by its laws and if and when you get caught breaking them you can scream FREEDOM in your best William Wallace voice but it will get you nowhere.
Such is Life...
The funny thing is that Draco chose Libertarianism after talking with some crazy leftie girl who apparently refused to engage him in debate or something
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm sorry, but I think this is a clearly fallacious example. Any wreck that is likely to cause a fatality by the driver not wearing a seat belt is likely to cause a road closure regardless. Cars don't up and move themselves on to the the shoulder, sweeping their debris behind them because the driver wore a seat belt.
And if this were a discussion of reckless driving you would have a passable argument. However, the danger posed to others when not wearing a seat belt is extraordinarily limited, and is really only a concern in the rarest of examples.
And if you are trying to argue that the impact not wearing your seat belt has on others are increased insurance costs, then the comparison becomes even more relevant.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-04-2011 at 03:25 AM.
I'm not "arguing" anything with Draco. Just pointing out that nothing is black and white, and the retort "Well, why stop there...." doesn't really help either. Lines need to be drawn somewhere, and those lines change over time, whether by law or company rule.
Years ago when we had this discussion, Nessus asked me what a free market solution to this problem would be. I answered that I thought insurance premium breaks/increases based on seat belt usage, (with cars becoming increasingly computerized this is a no-brainer, and the technology to make an adapter for older models is also fairly simple). Of course, there are ways around this, and people who violate it would lose their coverage if they were involved in an accident.
I can't see why this is a less viable solution to the problem.
Because it costs private businesses more money to do this than to lobby for the appropriate legislation.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Insurance is legally required. As for the black box, I'm more concerned about disclosures for what's being tracked, and why. But that's just me.
But hey, Draco said he's young and working out liberty / freedom, comparing ideals with reality. Thought it might be helpful to explore why the "Don't Tell Me What To Do" attitude is okay from a company, but not the government. Gotta problem with that?
Companies don't usually hold you against your will and at gun point if you don't do what they say?
Cleanups involving fatalities take a lot longer though.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
lolok i'll give it another relentless go
I meant that your concentration on the road isn't as focused.
But you're right, there is something wrong with me. I've been told that for years now, I just don't know what.
Ok, but the road would still be closed even if there wasn't a fatality (depending on the severity of the accident). As far as I know, only one or two lanes are closed off.
Because the money that they use to build and maintain those roads, is taken, by force, from their citizens. Hence I don't consider it to be the governments property. They merely operate the road. Yes, we obviously need the roads, but just because there's a need for something by the town/city, doesn't mean that it's the governments responsibility to provide it.Seat belts protect my rights to use the road. Anyway, as discussed the roads are the governments property as such they can set the rules. You said the property owner can set the rules so why doesn't that apply when the property owner is the government?
The road is not their property, its the governments. You don't have to use a seatbelt on private roads, only state-owned roads.
I wasn't talking about the likes of asbestos, rather products that can be easily bought and driven to your home. Since we're all arguing from the "potential harm" view point, what if a child dies because they emptied a bottle of say, household ammonia, bleach and domestos into their mouth? Maybe then the government should install a set of cameras into every household with a child, since the government is all about protecting you from yourself.Food standards, pest control products etc, etc are regulated. Try using asbestos as a building material. Food establishments don't just have strict standards they need to meet, but regular (and unannounced) inspections to see that they're maintaining them. Chemicals are strictly regulated too.
It's obvious why they put them in (or unless they're forced to by the government).
I wouldn't do anything. It is their life after all.Now take an older car pre-1960, or an antique or vintage car. No seat belts. Maybe a first generation lap belt. Also no head restraints or air bags. Pretend you're in charge of Public Highway Safety....what would you do about owners driving these cars on the roadway? If you're the insurance company guy in charge of Auto Liability Guidelines....what would you do?
My friend has a Mercedes from the 60s, and there aren't any seat belts in the back seats. The few times that I've been in his car, it was somewhat of a scary thought that I didn't have a seat belt (plus the seats were very springy) in the event of a car accident. He's with an insurance company that's supposed to specialise in such cars, so it seems to be ok by them.
Well I do have experience with driving in a car whilst the radio is on, or even talking on a mobile phone, and the difference between the two (in terms of which is more distractive), at least for me (and I'd even go so far as to say anyone else that I know who drives), is noticeable. I don't know what it's like to have a crying baby, but it's still different from having a phone your hand, or pushing it into your ear with your shoulder, whilst trying to control the steering wheel with the other..Distraction is distraction. Try driving a car with the radio on, a crying baby in the back, or kids bickering about who touched whom.
Well if you're stupid enough to be holding a hot cup of coffee, whilst in motion...all these arguments amount to potentialities in the end. Which is why I included my dieing child scenario.Can you hear the fire engine siren, are you totally focused on driving? How about drinking hot coffee that spills on your lap?
Yes because the private company is privately owned.Again, sounds like you're okay with restrictions on your freeeedom, if it comes from a private company but not the government. You're using the gummint as teh evil scapegoat, but it doesn't pass the smell test. How about....
I'm not going to stop the insurance company and automobile manufacturers from doing what they wish with their business.Private insurance gets together with high tech and auto makers, creates and installs a monitor connected to the computer system, that can record your engine speed, pedal action, braking patterns, wheel and steering movements, and any impacts? A black box that records and recreates an accident, that you may/may not know is there. A digital recording that the insurance company can analyze and present in court, to determine if you were at fault for an accident?
I won't say because I don't want to take this argument any further.Libertarians like to use that slippery slope argument, but it falls apart fast. No one is forced to eat fast food like they're forced to share the highway. Some chemicals have been banned because they're so toxic, others are regulated for professional use only. What could possibly be your objection to that?
You either forogt what I said, or are (again) twisting my arguments. But I'll go with the latter, since I've noticed a lot of people here like to use the 'The funny thing is that Draco chose Libertarianism after talking with some crazy leftie girl who apparently refused to engage him in debate or something
The crazy lefty girl approached me, who, after an exchange of a few words, went into a rant about wealthy people, and how they should be taxed at a higher rate (they already are, so I assumed she meant an even higher rate), and what topped it off for me was "What are they going to do with all that money anyway?" I was truly disgusted (as I am by some of the posts in this topic) that any one person would give themselves the right to say what another person should do with their money. I'm glad that she was wearing sun glasses, because I would have hated to see her eyes.
That's just it. I don't have the time, nor great interest in this topic, to research my 'thesis' and then present a case. No offence to anyone here, but I doubt it would make even the slightest difference. I was going by such issues as same sex marriage or abortion, or euthanasia. Yes, these particular three issues are more 'modern', and the fact that the government of any Western state did not openly accept them, points (although flimsily) to the fact that the government has become bigger. Anyway, the government shouldn't even have to 'accept' anything as legal that pertains to ones ownership of their body or property, but unfortunately we live in such a system where they decide what's wrong and right in regards to your life.
Where??I notice you are replying in a dense number of slippery slopes and strawmen. Probably because you feel you are defending your opinion against mine. I was actually expecting a reply like: "well sure in some cases the gov has a role in society, but that doesn't mean ...". As I said, I was merely curious, but since you did include the slippery slope.
I know that a child of 12 years doesn't have the maturity, or mental development to understand the decision that they make, but in such a scenario, it would be the role of the parents to intervene, not the government. I'm inclined to say that there should be an age limit as to how young one can be married, but what this age should be, I don't know. You'd have to discuss the matter with child psychologists and the likes.Do you actually feel that the same motivation for a government agency who's job it is to help people with suicidal tendencies, can be used for not allowing people to marry whoever they want? And be careful, the danger with slippery slopes is, they can be used against you. Other people might respond to "can't marry someone", with "so you want people to be able to marry 12 year olds?". And you'd have to explain that's different since it's not between consenting adults. but be aware that is the tactic you (and Lewk) are using here. Gov interferes in some way, so the "logical" ( and I use the word quite Lewk-like IE wrongly) next step is gov telling you where to take a shit.
Our right to life shouldn't be up in the air for the majority of the public to decide. My right to marry whomever I want, to do what I want with my property, with my body, with my life, is not for the voters to decide.Another thing I noticed:
This is the best part of our democratic world: the majority always wins
or you're not allowed to deny service to another person because there's a law that says they're a 'protected minority.
Seems there is a way for democracy to also protect the rights of minorities. Even overdoing it in your opinion by the sound of it.
What's more imortant: To be forced into doing something that may save your life, or having the choice to do it?
When exactly have you been held at gunpoint for not fastening the seatbelt? It's a misdemeanor with a comparatively small fine. Like a parking ticket.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Fines and taxes are taken at gun-point in the US, in gold coins, with a mother and 2.1 children crying in the background. It's like in the olden days when the local lord's tax keepers came and took some lambs and pigs and grain from your cot, the US is just so weird about taxation that way.
Now what you could've asked was how often Enoch does business with Blackwater or any other company in the security business, to which he'd respond with "most companies aren't in that line of work" or similar. Which of course ignores that his ideology would hold that the major functions of government, one being holding people at gun-point, should be out-sourced to private companies. But this all hinges on the idea that people have to be held at gun-point in the first place, an idea which the extreme right and extreme left both deny for the opposite reasons. C'est la vie.
And there's also the bizarre fallacy about the moral difference between holding someone at gunpoint and allowing someone shot to bleed to death, but that's just way too polarizing to discuss.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
And none of us are disagreeing with this point (or at least I'm not). What we are trying to inform them of is that this particular action can affect other people, and in a manner that impacts them more than having the option not to wear a seat belt, legally, affects whomever would do so.
At least here in New York, a traffic accident will be moved off the road once a tow truck and police officer can get there, whereas a fatality involves an accident investigation before moving the fatalities and vehicles off the road.
This also ignores the vehicular manslaughter point that was raised.
And its only slightly more arbitrarily enforced than jaywalking here in the US, and usually only if you've gotten into an accident, or the police have pulled you over for driving recklessly.
They beat you in Australia for not paying your taxes? No wonder you feel so harshly about all of this...
Last edited by Illusions; 03-04-2011 at 03:42 PM.
. . .
Human rights shouldn't be up for a vote, we agree on that. But not all rights are equal.
Having seat belt laws is effectively the same thing as insurance rules, with the exception that traffic cops can't cite and fine for violating insurance rules. You don't mind a private company telling you what to do, just when the government does? That's not a statement about liberty and freeeedom, so much as a blanket condemnation of government.
See, a private company employing you can have very restrictive requirements, and your only choice is to quit or comply. They can do drug tests, monitor your lifestyle habits, use CCTV, demand you quit smoking or drinking, discriminate against your sexual orientation, stifle your speech, prohibit union association; all sorts of things you'd deem unacceptable if the government did it. And during recessions, people are loath to quit a paying job just to make a political statement. So they have a lot of control over your life, who needs a gun when they can use money as a weapon?
It is possible to take anything to its extreme, especially libertarian philosophy. Taken too far it becomes anarchy. A degree of this don't tell me what to do or live freeee or die is an illusion. Substituting "choice" for rules or laws....it's a way of feeling power and control over authority. Any authority. Why?What's more imortant: To be forced into doing something that may save your life, or having the choice to do it?
Wait. The government shouldn't defend the rights of children, instead that duty should be left entirely to the parents. Because we clearly live in a world where every parent does a good job of NOT endangering their children
I note Draco doesn't say anything much about the suicide remarks either.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Years ago, my best friend and I had this conversation when her first child hit puberty. Ultimately, the only people who can Tell You What To Do are those with guns, or those who threaten physical force. Cops, military, armed guards, militia, criminals. Abusive parents or spouses. You can still choose to say No, if you prefer to be beat up, restrained, or shot.
Parents can't make you respect them. Teachers can't make you learn. Laws and rules don't make you do something, or not do something. But at some point, everyone decides there are valid authority figures, and we stop acting like rebellious teenagers getting honked off about who's controlling our lives. It's part of living in a civil society to make some trade-offs. Well, maybe sociopaths never agree to that voluntary pact.
I can see the argument right now if the law was changed to: "Only children up till age 18 have to wear seat belts."Wait. The government shouldn't defend the rights of children, instead that duty should be left entirely to the parents. Because we clearly live in a world where every parent does a good job of NOT endangering their children
Then the argument becomes: "How does the government dare to tell me how to care for my children!"
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I wonder whether the libertarian camp would split at that point between those who consider children property and therefore sacrosanct, and those who would give all the same rights to toddlers as they would to everyone else.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
This statement shoes you do not understand the difference between a company (which is a voluntary association) and government (which is not).Having seat belt laws is effectively the same thing as insurance rules, with the exception that traffic cops can't cite and fine for violating insurance rules. You don't mind a private company telling you what to do, just when the government does? That's not a statement about liberty and freeeedom, so much as a blanket condemnation of government.
But as I said earlier, public road means public rules.
Serious ones would view kids as individuals, thus my right to be stupid ends at the noses of kids, even my own kids.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
They won't let you move out of Maine?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
