+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Election Thread (/thread-3689.html)
Election Thread - SwissMercenary - 11-20-2006
To continue on...
I believe that there are four main schools of thought in regards to privacy contracts, although this can be extended to most any contract.
1) Anything goes. There should be no regulations whatsoever, and unless your bank explicitly agreed that it won't share your personal information, then it can do whatever it wants with it.
2) Opt-out. Banks, credit card companies, service-oriented businesses have to get your permission to share your personal information - however, if you don't check that checkbox off, then you don't have a contract.
3) Opt-in. You have to grant your permission for others to share your personal information - however, if you do not want to do so, then you should still get the credit card/bank account/service (For possibly a higher cost then you would if you checked that box)
4) Nothing goes. You must grant your express permission in each instance that your personal information is shared.
You seem to subscribe to #2. That's currently how things work for privacy, and let me tell you, in my opinion, it's working badly. If you need a credit card to pay your bills, and the companies in your area require you to check that magic box, that's not much choice you have there, no?
As an individual, you have little or no bargaining power (And I think I've outlined as to how difficult it is to get people to agree on the time of day, let alone to start a boycott).
That ties in with your permise of 'Instead of regulation, have people start lawsuits.' It doesn't work well, because a lawsuit against a team of corporate lawyers is an extremely risky proposition. If you lose, you'll be completely hooped. As can be seen by events that were borderline fraud in the software industry (And I'm not talking games, here), and the difficulty wronged parties had in bringing those responsible to court, 'regulation by lawsuits' is not a detterrant.
Not to mention that in order for a lawsuit to take place in the first place, the damage must have already been done. Even if Joe Smoe wins a suit against Mexican Candy Producer X, that still won't get any lead out of his system.
Quote:I'm more fed up with the ones who harvest and spam me illegally.Well, hardly. I believe as a corporation, or anyone selling a product for that matter must fairly represent the quality of the product. To do otherwise is fraud. Consumer beware. Now, when it comes to putting rat poison in hot dogs, you have a criminal act. I think there should be incredibly tough criminal laws on endangering peoples health.What about endangering people's money, as in the case with non-functioning financial managment software?
What about causing them employment problems, because their data file contains incorrect information about some criminal act that they didn't commit?
Quote:So, if you apply those same notions to business, you punish severely any corporate breech of law, holding all the corporate officers equally culpable, and impose a fine of say not less than 10% of profit for a number of years.
That might work - if your chances of winning a lawsuit had more to do with whether or not you are in the right, and less to do with how good your lawyer is.
Quote: You would be surprised how cleanly corporations would run, when the risk of not running clean cuts into the bottom line.
Corporations can't plan ahead any further then John Smith who's drinking away his paycheck. Typically, the singular concern of their directors is short-term profit for their shareholders, and themselves. After that, if things start going south, they jump ship. Also, due to the buffers involved, most of those people aren't directly accountable for their crimes (I wonder why the anti-mafia legislature does not apply to business...)
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-21-2006
Quote:To continue on...Well, #2 or #3 would suit me. For most advertisers, writing or calling asking them to stop is enough. A small little hassle. I'm on the National Do Not Call register, and I read the fine print of all the contracts I sign.
...
You seem to subscribe to #2. That's currently how things work for privacy, and let me tell you, in my opinion, it's working badly. If you need a credit card to pay your bills, and the companies in your area require you to check that magic box, that's not much choice you have there, no?
As an individual, you have little or no bargaining power (And I think I've outlined as to how difficult it is to get people to agree on the time of day, let alone to start a boycott).
Quote:That ties in with your permise of 'Instead of regulation, have people start lawsuits.' It doesn't work well, because a lawsuit against a team of corporate lawyers is an extremely risky proposition. If you lose, you'll be completely hooped. As can be seen by events that were borderline fraud in the software industry (And I'm not talking games, here), and the difficulty wronged parties had in bringing those responsible to court, 'regulation by lawsuits' is not a detterrant. Not to mention that in order for a lawsuit to take place in the first place, the damage must have already been done. Even if Joe Smoe wins a suit against Mexican Candy Producer X, that still won't get any lead out of his system. What about endangering people's money, as in the case with non-functioning financial management software? What about causing them employment problems, because their data file contains incorrect information about some criminal act that they didn't commit?If Joe Smoe is harmed by the candy company they are in violation of criminal law, not just civil law. And, as other food and product tampering cases have shown, you can only do so much to regulate quality. At some point, if you didn't grow it yourself, you will need to trust the people who made your food and bottled your drinks. This is the tactic of pointing at poor Joe Smoe and then getting congress to write 1000 pages of regulations and costing food manufacturers and consumers millions to try to live up to them. When, all it takes is one disgruntled employee to toss in a few dozen mercury thermometers to foul the whole works. I don't have an easy answer here, its just that excessive regulations are probably not the only answer to make the food chain safe. I'm not really that much in favor of tort as a solution either. If you've been harmed, then you should have a fair chance to expect relief. I've been involved with some small tort cases against landlords who try to unfairly keep damage deposits. I usually came to an equitable agreement through the courts. I like California's system of arbitration prior to trial to work things out without courts. There are definitely some evil software companies (*cough* SCO *cough* ) that use lawyers as a weapon. People and companies should learn not to do business with scumbags.
Quote:That might work - if your chances of winning a lawsuit had more to do with whether or not you are in the right, and less to do with how good your lawyer is.Actually, its a correlation to the amount you are willing to spend. But, like it or not that is the nature of justice. Mostly, overall, people are giving a pretty fair chance. You hear about the excess, but on a day by day basis most cases are resolved fairly.
Quote:Corporations can't plan ahead any further then John Smith who's drinking away his paycheck. Typically, the singular concern of their directors is short-term profit for their shareholders, and themselves. After that, if things start going south, they jump ship. Also, due to the buffers involved, most of those people aren't directly accountable for their crimes (I wonder why the anti-mafia legislature does not apply to business...)You might think that, but trust me, any worthy board of directors is going to look to protect their investment by requiring the corporate officers not jeopardize their assets needlessly. Even if officers bail, they cannot escape criminal charges. Ask Ken Lay, Fastow, or Skilling how easy it is to avoid the law. People were duped, but I remember choosing not to buy Enron or Worldcom when everyone was pushing them. I think it was something to do with the old saying "Every silver lining must have a cloud..." and "If it looks to good to be true, it probably is."
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-21-2006
Quote:Because it won't be an isolated incident. If that is permitted, it will quite probably result in everybody else getting the said 70 hour sweatshop work weeks, as long as the consumers don't care about the policies of the company they purchase from. ...Is that even close to remotely possible in your understanding of the current employment landscape in America? I'm not advocating gutting all employment law, but just pointing out that the current employment regulations meant to "protect" workers from employer abuse also harm employees and cost people jobs and income. In my world employer and employee are an equal relationship, but perhaps others have a more abusive one. I'd tell you that the 1950's are over, and any employer who treats their employees poorly will probably fail in other endeavors. Get out, and find a reasonable, respectful relationship. You don't need to be anyone's slave.
... Howevber, what if the employer takes the next step - require all the rest of his employees to work 6x12, knowing that he can always replace them (People are a renewable resource, right?), if they don't agree. It need not be 6x12 drastic, but it may very well come in small steps.
Quote:Stupid enough? Most of the contracts wherein you signed it away prior to most recent times had checking that box as a requirement, if you want that service/credit card/whatnot. Stupid enough? That's similar to saying that the elderly are stupid enough to fall for schemes and scams.I think I remember someone saying recently "The unregulated free market works only on the premise that people are smart enough to make an informed choice."
I'll respond to the rest in a bit.
When you sign your name, you had better take the time to know to what you are agreeing. Like Forest says... Stupid is as stupid does. Elderly or not, its your life. By the way, I'm moving very close to elderly, so I know what I'm talking about. You seem to want to protect everyone from what "might" happen, and the reality is "you can't", but you can and will drive us bankrupt trying. Since, it's not your money. Like the new MADD campaign... Outfit every single new motor vehicle with an expensive drunk driver detector ("Interlocks cost offenders about $1,000 a year in installation, monitoring and monthly fees."). Let's punish everyone for the crimes of the few. And... the world is a dangerous place, so remember hot coffee is hot and sometimes its scalding hot. Don't put it between your legs.
Election Thread - SwissMercenary - 11-21-2006
Quote:Is that even close to remotely possible in your understanding of the current employment landscape in America? I'm not advocating gutting all employment law, but just pointing out that the current employment regulations meant to "protect" workers from employer abuse also harm employees and cost people jobs and income. In my world employer and employee are an equal relationship, but perhaps others have a more abusive one. I'd tell you that the 1950's are over, and any employer who treats their employees poorly will probably fail in other endeavors. Get out, and find a reasonable, respectful relationship. You don't need to be anyone's slave.
The 1900's, and the 1950's are indeed over. I don't have any problems with wide-spread employee abuse today. As you've said, isolated cases.
What I want to see, is for things to not change from the way they are, in any major way. Regulations meant to 'protect' workers causing more harm? Could you give some very wide-spread examples of those? Isolated cases, or an over-the-top regulation here or there don't really count, right?
Quote:When you sign your name, you had better take the time to know to what you are agreeing.And if people could do so, people wouldn't hire lawyers to dechiper half of the legalspeak thrown at us. As the saying goes, half the population is below average, and the average is not good.
Quote: Like Forest says... Stupid is as stupid does. Elderly or not, its your life. By the way, I'm moving very close to elderly, so I know what I'm talking about. You seem to want to protect everyone from what "might" happen, and the reality is "you can't", but you can and will drive us bankrupt trying.
I don't see how outlawing 'Opt-out' contracts for certain essential services and weekly meat processing plant inspections are bankrupting anyone.
It's hardly protecting people from what 'might' happen, seeing as how these things have happened and do happen on an enormous scale. This isn't outlawing knives because two children managed to cut themselves last year - this is closer to outlawing pointing your gun at random people on the street.
Quote: Since, it's not your money. Like the new MADD campaign... Outfit every single new motor vehicle with an expensive drunk driver detector ("Interlocks cost offenders about $1,000 a year in installation, monitoring and monthly fees."). Let's punish everyone for the crimes of the few.
I can't see how this is at all relevant to your claims, seeing as how this doesn't punish everyone - only the people who have already proven themselves to be dangerous behind the wheel.
And in what I'm talking about, it isn't even punishments. Slaughterhouses should be inspected on a regular basis anyways. Employers should not expect their employees to pull off 60 hour work weeks for 4$/hour. A bank with a conscience should provide you the option of getting that all-so-important credit card without selling your personal information to thir parties, even if that means they'll charge more.
Quote: And... the world is a dangerous place, so remember hot coffee is hot and sometimes its scalding hot. Don't put it between your legs.You might want to note that the McDonalds Hot Coffee case wasn't as clear cut as you'd like it to think. For one thing, their coffee was not suitable for drinking at the temperature they serve it. It caused significant burns, which required skin grafts, if I'm not mistaken. And none of this would have happened if they had only served their coffee at the temperature that everybody else does. This wasn't even the first case wherein someone was burnt by their coffee, so they really should have known better. And lastly, the reason it went to court, was because they refused an out-of-court settlement (And the court award was appropriately reduced in an appeals court).
I really can't see how anyone could have any sympathy for McDonalds, there.
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-22-2006
Quote:... It's hardly protecting people from what 'might' happen, seeing as how these things have happened and do happen on an enormous scale. ...Yes it is. It is all related to pushing the "prevention" agenda. You have even indicated this. You are implying that people are too stupid to be allowed to have freedoms. We must protect people (at taxpayer expense) from being harmed by society.
I used to hardly ever break the law, now I can't help it. Like, just the other day... I was running late bringing my son to school, and my car didn't have the right sized booster seat. So.... Shhh. Don't let this get out.... I let him ride in the front seat without one. OH MY GAWD!!! Call child protection!!! We might have been hit on our 25 mph speed limit road and both of us killed!
WELCOME TO THE NANNY STATE
"All harms (oh, and freedoms) have been removed for your protection, and should anyone have any possible problem we will intervene with a multi-million dollar lawsuit (against anyone with deep pockets) to ease your emotional pain and suffering. Oh, and in order to fund this rubber room society we will need 90% of your take home pay. Please enjoy your environmentally friendly apartment complex, with your mandated mass transit system all supplied by the government to you at no cost whatsoever."
![[Image: Soma.jpg]](http://home.mchsi.com/~russerickson/Soma.jpg)
Enjoy your Soma. Er, I mean Prozac.
Election Thread - Swiss Mercenary - 11-22-2006
Quote:Enjoy your Soma. Er, I mean Prozac.
Nice strawman-burning. I'm sorry that I feel that drunk drivers should be inconvenieced by breathaliser auto-locks after they got caught. I'm once again, sorry that I want to infringe on the freedom of employers to require 70 hour work weeks from their unskilled cattle, and that I want to enforce that which should really be in various company policies in the first place.
After all, the folks in those 19th century sweatshops worked 14 hours a day (Oh, yes, that would be almost everyone), and died at the age of 35 because they wanted to.
It's shocking that all the sissies these days actually expect 40 hour work weeks, and relatively safe working conditions, even for unskilled labourers. I know, it's disguisting.
Election Thread - Assur - 11-22-2006
Hi
Just to get back to the original posting which started the thread, un-Lurker-like even though that it is:rolleyes:
How high are the chances that the new Dem majority will start a hearing/commission/inquiry into:
a: That the administration lied about WMDs in Iraq and just tried to finish a cause which was signaled way back with PNAC. Personally I don't believe that the whole truth will get out but at least a few Neo-Cons and policy wonks will be exposed to the general public.
b. Just what went wrong after the conventional warfare phase in Iraq!? I assume that the present mess was on nobody's radar, but to prevent future deployments suffering from such a screw-up an in-depth inquiry would seem suitable.
Plus a few questions from the eastern side of the Atlantic.
1. Personally I wouldn't want Hillary Clinton as my Mother-in-Law but a lot of American voters seem to view her as a mixture of Lady Macbeth and Lucrecia Borgie, with added nastiness! Why? Do you think that she will be the Dem presidential candidate in 08?
2.Could it be that the Dems are less powerfixated than the Reps? The way Pelosi screwed up elections for majority leader leads me to believe that the Dems are totally anti-Bush but seem to lack the killerinstinct neccessary to rip out the jugular of the enemy. Your view as a close-up observer?
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-22-2006
Quote:Nice strawman-burning. I'm sorry that I feel that drunk drivers should be inconvenieced by breathaliser auto-locks after they got caught. I'm once again, sorry that I want to infringe on the freedom of employers to require 70 hour work weeks from their unskilled cattle, and that I want to enforce that which should really be in various company policies in the first place.If you read the article of MADD's intent, they mean to have devices installed in ALL cars. Not just offenders.
After all, the folks in those 19th century sweatshops worked 14 hours a day (Oh, yes, that would be almost everyone), and died at the age of 35 because they wanted to.
It's shocking that all the sissies these days actually expect 40 hour work weeks, and relatively safe working conditions, even for unskilled labourers. I know, it's disguisting.
And... I'm not worried about your regulations infringing on employers (your mind set), I'm pointing out you are infringing on employees who would like to get paid for 70 hour weeks. And... as we both know (with a 3.2% unemployment rate) employees are free to better their condition and vote with their feet to get a better job if they are unhappy with the employer from hell (which you seem to think is very common). And, for your information, I'm an employer who has a salaried employee who worked 365 hours in August against my advice because they were dedicated to accomplishing a task. I cannot pay that person for the hours worked. I did the best I could to reward them for their dedication, but its hardly fair. That person shrugged it off and said, I'm not married and I've got no children so it was no big deal. By the end of our project I'd bet this person works at least 1000 hours of overtime.
Election Thread - SwissMercenary - 11-22-2006
Quote:If you read the article of MADD's intent, they mean to have devices installed in ALL cars. Not just offenders.
And that I would certainly oppose. Well, until they put their money where their mouths are.
The distinction wasn't clear in your last post. I've read the article, and got the jist that it should be installed in the cars of offenders.
Quote:And... I'm not worried about your regulations infringing on employers (your mind set), I'm pointing out you are infringing on employees who would like to get paid for 70 hour weeks.
That's exactly why I subscribe to option 3. Have standards, and require voluntary action on the part of the individual to choose to disregard those standards.
Quote: And, for your information, I'm an employer who has a salaried employee who worked 365 hours in August against my advice because they were dedicated to accomplishing a task. I cannot pay that person for the hours worked.
And I'm very much against that. If he wants to work overtime, and you don't expect everyone else to work unreasonable overtime, then by all means, he should do so.
In that case, yeah, you're right, there's something that's pretty wrong with the system. I don't agree that the system should be thrown out with the bathwater, though.
You have to do a degree of protection of the masses, because quite a lot of behaviours that I've spoken of are careless, reckless, or simply driven by greed at the expense of others. I have absolutely no qualms about limiting the freedom of people to exercise those behaviours, before we get mass poisoning, defective radiation therapy machines installed in hospitals, or people kneeling over on their couch, and not getting up from EA work weeks.
Behaviour that is otherwise typically harmless, such as owning firearms in your home (Although, let's not talk about that), having Opt-In options on contracts, and driving without breathalyser locks in your car when you've got a clean record, on the other hand should not be regulated.
The difference between not adhering to regulation in the former, against the latter, is that in the former, the regulation is there for a good reason - it's something that the employer/producer/driver should be doing in the first place if they have any concern for the safety of others. In the latter, it's a non-functioning band-aid.
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-22-2006
Quote:...You have to do a degree of protection of the masses, because quite a lot of behaviours that I've spoken of are careless, reckless, or simply driven by greed at the expense of others.The problem I see is that a few examples of bad behavior (by individuals or companies) are not only addressed with punishments, but then also followed up with more regulations to prevent anyone from ever being able to offend again which are punitive against everyone, offender and non-offender alike.
...The difference between not adhering to regulation in the former, against the latter, is that in the former, the regulation is there for a good reason - it's something that the employer/producer/driver should be doing in the first place if they have any concern for the safety of others. In the latter, it's a non-functioning band-aid.
So in my life, I've been harassed by the government for growing raspberry bushes or not shoveling my driveway quickly enough after a snow storm. If the government thinks raspberry bushes are a nuisance, well who am I to argue. If I happen to be out of town when it snows, well gosh I should have made arrangements with a neighborhood kid to keep me covered.
In this state for many years, everyone had to go out of their way to get their car checked for smog emissions until they figured out that 99.9% of all vehicles passed the test and the detection stations were a huge waste of money.
Another example, telling bar owners they cannot allow smoking on their property.
Another example, requiring everyone to wear a seat belt. Because, it's the State responsibility to protect everyone from being stupid. Let's ignore the escalating violent crime rate, but by all means let's get those miscreant unsafe seat belt violators. I bet this is top on the list of why people enter the field of law enforcement.
Another example, this state is looking into providing free health care for every child in the state. This is beyond Minnesota Care, which states that if you are turned down by three insurance companies the State will insure you. See this way the state can be sure that you have all the programs covered that they want your child to participate. Who pays for this?
Another example, this state is looking into paying high school students to take difficult classes like math and sciences. So like education is no longer its own incentive, now we need to pay kids to go to school. Who pays for this?
Another example, child psychologists hired in every school district to review the mental state of every child (with the parents consent -- nice that they ask). Again, not only is this opening the door for huge issues between parents and schools disagreeing on how to raise Johnny, but who pays for this?
Another example, no one under the age of 18 can own, purchase or rent a video game that is rated M - Mature and risk a $25 dollar fine per offense, regardless of parental permission (because the state knows best). Because children aren't covered by the Bill of Rights, and don't get 1st amendment freedom.
Election Thread - Griselda - 11-22-2006
Quote:Another example, this state is looking into providing free health care for every child in the state. This is beyond Minnesota Care, which states that if you are turned down by three insurance companies the State will insure you. See this way the state can be sure that you have all the programs covered that they want your child to participate. Who pays for this?
A child in the state gets sick and doesn't go to the doctor because they don't have insurance. The problem worsens and they eventually need hospitalization. Who pays for that?
Election Thread - Swiss Mercenary - 11-22-2006
Quote:The problem I see is that a few examples of bad behavior (by individuals or companies) are not only addressed with punishments, but then also followed up with more regulations to prevent anyone from ever being able to offend again which are punitive against everyone, offender and non-offender alike.
As I've already said, if the behaviour that causes these problems is reckless in the first place, then I don't care if you can handle your vehicle perfectly after you have twice the legal limit. Likewise, I don't care if you feel that you don't need to have a seat belt, because really, it should be a no brainer. You should be wearing one anyways, when driving on the road (Unless you'd like to argue that seatbelts really don't do anything. I think quite a few people will be happy to disagree about that).
Quote:In this state for many years, everyone had to go out of their way to get their car checked for smog emissions until they figured out that 99.9% of all vehicles passed the test and the detection stations were a huge waste of money.
As stupid as that is, you have to realise that it's a bit difficult to catch offenders here without mandatory inspections. Seeing as how, you know, cars that produce smog over the legal limit don't have big flashing neon lights that say: 'FINE ME'
Although if the standards are that low, it's probably not worth the trouble,
Quote:Another example, telling bar owners they cannot allow smoking on their property.
Second hand smoke-related health problems are quite real. I don't know the statistics on them, but I think it'd be a fairly safe bet to say that they are just about guaranteed to manifest themselves in employees who have worked for a long time in smoke-filled environments. Would you rather have 60% (Purely fictional statistic here) of the employees sue their employer 20 years down the road for when they, as non-smokers need a lung carved out (Oh, wait, by then, you can't prove a thing), or nip the problem in the bud?
Quote:Another example, this state is looking into paying high school students to take difficult classes like math and sciences. So like education is no longer its own incentive, now we need to pay kids to go to school. Who pays for this?
Idiocy, and the wrong solution to the problem.
Quote:Another example, child psychologists hired in every school district to review the mental state of every child (with the parents consent -- nice that they ask). Again, not only is this opening the door for huge issues between parents and schools disagreeing on how to raise Johnny, but who pays for this?
I can't make a judgement on that without knowing what kind of impact that has on school environments.
Quote:Another example, no one under the age of 18 can own, purchase or rent a video game that is rated M - Mature and risk a $25 dollar fine per offense, regardless of parental permission (because the state knows best). Because children aren't covered by the Bill of Rights, and don't get 1st amendment freedom.I don't like ratings much myself, but I don't have an opinion on that.
Election Thread - Delc - 11-22-2006
Quote:Likewise, I don't care if you feel that you don't need to have a seat belt, because really, it should be a no brainer. You should be wearing one anyways, when driving on the road (Unless you'd like to argue that seatbelts really don't do anything. I think quite a few people will be happy to disagree about that).Its no ones business but my own if I choose not to wear a seatbelt.
Quote:As stupid as that is, you have to realise that it's a bit difficult to catch offenders here without mandatory inspections. Seeing as how, you know, cars that produce smog over the legal limit don't have big flashing neon lights that say: 'FINE ME'The inspections were a waste of time because there were too many ways around them. The easiest being to get a bottle of emissions cleaner and dump it in your tank the day before. 364 days a year the car may spew nasty black smog, but for the only day that counts it comes in just under the limit.
Quote:Second hand smoke-related health problems are quite real. I don't know the statistics on them, but I think it'd be a fairly safe bet to say that they are just about guaranteed to manifest themselves in employees who have worked for a long time in smoke-filled environments. Would you rather have 60% (Purely fictional statistic here) of the employees sue their employer 20 years down the road for when they, as non-smokers need a lung carved out (Oh, wait, by then, you can't prove a thing), or nip the problem in the bud?No one forced that job on them. Don't like working in the smoke go elsewhere, there are no shortage of places looking for people around here.
Election Thread - Rhydderch Hael - 11-22-2006
Quote:... Another example, no one under the age of 18 can own, purchase or rent a video game that is rated M - Mature and risk a $25 dollar fine per offense, regardless of parental permission (because the state knows best). Because children aren't covered by the Bill of Rights, and don't get 1st amendment freedom.Are you sure about that? A rating of AO is the one that is legally restricted from minors. M+17 is a suggested restrictionâ legally you can sell them to a minor (more often than not it's store policy that restricts them).
Election Thread - --Pete - 11-22-2006
Hi,
Quote:A child in the state gets sick and doesn't go to the doctor because they don't have insurance. The problem worsens and they eventually need hospitalization. Who pays for that?Nobody pays for it. Yeah, it is harsh and maybe the kid dies. But the responsibility for that kid should be on the shoulders of the people who engendered that kid. If they can't take care of it, then they shouldn't have had it. Passing the buck to the rest of society for their poor decision is an act of selfishness and should not be tolerated.
Sorry, but the government is *not* our parents. As long as it protects me from you (and conversely) and both of us from foreign enemies, it is doing its job. Anything beyond that, and it is usurping our individual rights and responsibilities.
--Pete
Election Thread - Swiss Mercenary - 11-22-2006
Quote:Its no ones business but my own if I choose not to wear a seatbelt.
Come to think of it, you're quite right. Have at it.
Quote:The inspections were a waste of time because there were too many ways around them. The easiest being to get a bottle of emissions cleaner and dump it in your tank the day before. 364 days a year the car may spew nasty black smog, but for the only day that counts it comes in just under the limit.
I prefer the way that you drive around the block, to get your engine warmed up, right before taking the test.
The problems with emissions control is two-fold in that respect. Or rather, many-fold. It's good grounds to scrap this instance of the program, until we can come up with something that works. Well, that is, if we at all care about the quality of air that we get to breathe.
However, because of the nature of this problem, you have to have mandatory inspections for everyone. You can't place an officer on the side of a road with a pretty tableau that says 'You in the red SUV, you're 50% over the legal limit,' like you can for say, speeding.
Quote:No one forced that job on them. Don't like working in the smoke go elsewhere, there are no shortage of places looking for people around here.
So, does that mean that all job safety regulations need be abolished? I mean, if you don't like working in unsafe environments, go work somewhere else. We shouldn't infringe on the freedom of employers to not give a damn about the working conditions of renewable labour.
Likewise, should living condition regulations be abolished as well? If you don't like living in an unsanitary rathole, it should be your problem to take up with your landlord, right?
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-22-2006
Quote:A child in the state gets sick and doesn't go to the doctor because they don't have insurance. The problem worsens and they eventually need hospitalization. Who pays for that?I'm not against children getting medical care. I'm against the State taking over the responsibility of paying for it. I want to pay for my kids health care, and I don't want my single neighbor to pay for my kids health care.
I want health care to be affordable, and the only thing the government has done is make it less affordable. The more that the government gets involved with mandates, and tax boons makes the problem of affordable health care worse.
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-22-2006
Quote:Are you sure about that? A rating of AO is the one that is legally restricted from minors. M+17 is a suggested restrictionâ legally you can sell them to a minor (more often than not it's store policy that restricts them).
Minnesota video game law overturned <-- It was M or AO, but it was overturned. Luckily, there are still some District court judges who understand freedoms and liberties.
Election Thread - kandrathe - 11-22-2006
Quote:"The problem I see is that a few examples of bad behavior (by individuals or companies) are not only addressed with punishments, but then also followed up with more regulations to prevent anyone from ever being able to offend again which are punitive against everyone, offender and non-offender alike."My statement wasn't about drinking and driving. I was reflecting on the "nanny state" response to everything. As an example, little Amy gets kidnapped walking to school by some heinous killer, and then we need an "Amy's Law" which mandates that every child must now ride the bus. Now we need to double the number of buses for each school district. One of those bus drivers shows up to work drunk, and now we need breathalyzers or daily drug screening in every school bus to insure the bus driver is fit to drive. Billy brings a hand gun to school, so the response is to outfit every school with metal detectors. We don't deal with the heinous killer, the drunken bus driver, or Billy, the nanny state wants to regulate it so it can never happen. But, it always does, maybe not in the way you predicted and regulated, but stupid will find a way.
As I've already said, if the behaviour that causes these problems is reckless in the first place, then I don't care if you can handle your vehicle perfectly after you have twice the legal limit.
Now, I'm not advocating bad things! I'm advocating that the State, regulations, laws and lawmakers are not always the answer. For example, it's up to parents to determine how to get their children safely to school, punish the heinous killer when they were merely a child molester, and kick Billy out of school, we don't need a nanny state.
Sometimes people are stupid and they suffer for it. That is a natural consequence of being stupid. You want to protect stupid people from their own idiocy with smart people's money, because stupid people don't generally earn much money or keep it very long when they do find a way to get some (usually Lotto). Just last night some guy got ripped and at 2am was driving around here erratically, the police were called and they finally found him having driven off the road and drowned in a pond. He got stupid, and he died for it. Unfortunately, sometimes people are stupid and they take other people out as well. You can't get in the business of preventing stupidness. It's unfathomable. The GNP of the world is not enough to root out just the stupidity in America.
So, I would like basic safety nets to prevent smart or stupid people from freezing to death, from starving to death, or dying from a lack of basic health care. But if a person wants to be on public assistance, eat twinkies, drink beer, and watch TV all day, I don't feel compelled to pay for their open heart surgery.
This goes for old people as well. If you are past a certain age, sorry, you don't get an expensive hip replacement surgery on the public dole, it's an elective. We just can't spend taxpayer money keeping everyone in perfect condition and alive as long as possible, it's insane. But, I would certainly understand that if you worked hard during your life and you wanted to spend your own money to extend your own life. By all means, get plastic surgery, new knees, whatever you want, as long as you pay for it.
Election Thread - SwissMercenary - 11-22-2006
Quote:Now, I'm not advocating bad things! I'm advocating that the State, regulations, laws and lawmakers are not always the answer. For example, it's up to parents to determine how to get their children safely to school, punish the heinous killer when they were merely a child molester, and kick Billy out of school, we don't need a nanny state.
And sometimes, they are the best answer that we can afford.
Can we agree on that, and just agree to disagree as to what specific excesses we consider to offend our sensibilities?