This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian." - Penn Jillette

#141mercuryinkPosted 9/5/2011 6:17:48 PM
It was an example of the majority oppressing the minority just because it could.

Ah, yes, and now I see what that all has to do with national healthcare and restrictions on banking practices and, you know, the topic at hand.

Well, rescinding speed limits completely is dumb. But relaxing them somewhat might not be given that the cars are safer. Me saying that probably will drive you batty.
Which is in no way what led to the current situation. Dozens of regulations were taken off the books entirely, or cut down to the equivalent of saying “there is a speed limit, but your speedometer probably doesn’t go that high”. And let’s get back to the speed limits. Would we just go across the nation and go, “the limit is five MPH higher”? No of course not. In areas where half the accidents are people hitting kids walking home from school, that would accomplish nothing of value. In areas where the speed limit is like, 80 MPH, nobody would notice. You plan. You look at why regulations are there and ask if they actually need changing, and why. You don’t cut because you can, anymore than you impose law just because you can.
We can't apply all the lessons from history to the way things are now, no. That would just make for archaic laws.

You’re absolutely right. You should, however, be able to show WHY a law needs changing. I can already make a strong argument in favor of not changing: “This is what happened without it.” You have to explain WHY it will not happen, something nobody ever did while they stripped these regulations. You keep saying how the laws are archaic, or can be archaic, but apart from there age, offer no other reason. I have evidence they are not. They were taken away. This happened. Exactly what the laws were there to prevent happened within a decade of the bulk of them being taken away. Twice. It did not happen with them in place.
Again, shooting a gun wildly into the air is a crime, and will remain a crime, because the effects of lead striking the human body have not changed all that much over the last few hundred years, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Someone might want the freedom to play Yosemite Sam, and you and I can say, “Yes, but when a bullet hits your neighbor, then you’ve taken away his freedom. So no more of that.”
Not what I said, clearly. But I will say that if this mess forces us to be more fiscally responsible as a nation, that is ultimately going to be a good thing. Of course, that remains to be seen.

Almost every argument you’ve made says they will not learn. So, what, we all need the freedom to hurt ourselves, just because we can? This is what you’re arguing for? The right to behave so stupidly that it actually hurts everyone else around us? I’m arguing for the right to be quite free, within prudence. You’re asking for the right to exercise prudence you yourself deny exists, until we aren’t free because we’ve closed off half our options (our economy is a wreck, for instance).
---
Some people are proof that G-d exists; evolution would have prevented them.
New Jersey Devils -- Stanley Cup Champions -- 1995-2000-2003
#142mercuryinkPosted 9/5/2011 6:22:33 PM
A lack of PT is Iowa is to be expected, though. There may not be enough people going to Des Moines from Bumble**** Iowa to warrant one. Whereas tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of people commute from Bumble**** Jersey to Manhattan, Philly, Newark, or any number of other cities per day. That’s not even the issue, so much, although rising transportation costs (the cost of me getting into Newark, for instance, has nearly doubled in the last two years) could drop if more people actually took the train or bus into the city. The problem arises when people need to get from work in one town to the grocery store in another, pick up the kids from football in a third and then come home to a fourth. We’ve spread ourselves out much, much thinner than we needed to be. Even if we ignore the fact that we’re kicking out a lot of junk into the atmosphere, even if we ignore the fact that we’re basically handing our money to other nations, one barrel at a time, even if we ignore the fact that in fifty years, tops, we’ll be in for a rude awakening when the gas runs out (and that’s assuming a bit of Hannukah action), we’re still using WAY more fuel than we need to. Any corporate efficiency expert, hell, any efficiency novice, can tell you that. It would be like making an omelette for yourself and scrapping half the carton of eggs for no good reason. And no, I’m not warning against Sunday drives (although would it kill you to take a Sunday “stroll”?) I’m just saying. You’ll probably agree with me on this.
It is a problem that our nation needs to address. The time to do so was probably several decades ago before we got entrenched in this lifestyle (and we got a glimpse of it in the 70s, albeit artificially. Next time we won’t be able to ride it out). Now… I’m not sure. But this can’t go on. Literally. Eventually one day it will, must, end. A wise government should take steps to ease our nation off of petroleum. They can encourage corporations to pursue long-term solutions (and no, not corn fuel. That was a stupid idea). Steps can be taken to ease our country off, because as you said yourself, capitalism tends to be very interested in the short term, and as such, unrestrained, it can come crashing down. I'd rather we ease ourselves down, and capitalism isn't equipped to handle it without some nudging. Perhaps perks for companies that pursue long-term projects, and perks for those who adopt them when they come to fruition.
---
Some people are proof that G-d exists; evolution would have prevented them.
New Jersey Devils -- Stanley Cup Champions -- 1995-2000-2003
#143cyclonekrusePosted 9/5/2011 7:28:31 PM
mercuryink posted...
Ah, yes, and now I see what that all has to do with national healthcare and restrictions on banking practices and, you know, the topic at hand.

Well, the topic at hand has changed drastically from what it was originally (a disagreement on what Mr. Jillette meant by his words). But, again, just because something is beneficial to the majority and is voted on does not make it an acceptable law. See: stripping Bill Gates of all his assets.

Which is in no way what led to the current situation...
You’re absolutely right. You should, however, be able to show WHY a law needs changing. I can already make a strong argument in favor of not changing: “This is what happened without it.” You have to explain WHY it will not happen, something nobody ever did while they stripped these regulations. You keep saying how the laws are archaic, or can be archaic, but apart from there age, offer no other reason. I have evidence they are not. They were taken away. This happened. Exactly what the laws were there to prevent happened within a decade of the bulk of them being taken away. Twice. It did not happen with them in place.


From what I've read, it's suggested that the recession might have happened regardless of that deregulation. One of the issues was that J.P. Morgan created a new derivative that they didn't fully understand. It wouldn't have been regulated because it was completely new. That plus low interest rates and irresponsible lending by banks (and irresponsible borrowing by consumers) are all factors in the collapse. Oh, and lack of transparency. Did deregulation have a hand in it? Maybe. But it's going to take years to sort out for certain. Deregulation alone certainly wasn't to blame though.

Almost every argument you’ve made says they will not learn.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Even so, I still believe in personal responsibility.

So, what, we all need the freedom to hurt ourselves, just because we can? This is what you’re arguing for? The right to behave so stupidly that it actually hurts everyone else around us?

I'm arguing for being responsible with ones rights.

I’m arguing for the right to be quite free, within prudence. You’re asking for the right to exercise prudence you yourself deny exists, until we aren’t free because we’ve closed off half our options (our economy is a wreck, for instance).

I think we should exercise prudence ourselves. I never said it was non-existent.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#144cyclonekrusePosted 9/5/2011 7:48:24 PM
mercuryink posted...
A lack of PT is Iowa is to be expected, though.

Didn't I say that?

There may not be enough people going to Des Moines from Bumble**** Iowa to warrant one.

There are commuter vans from Ames to Des Moines. And a bus system throughout the Des Moines metro area. But that's all I've seen.

The problem arises when people need to get from work in one town to the grocery store in another, pick up the kids from football in a third and then come home to a fourth.

That much happens in Iowa too. Except towns are sometimes 20 miles apart. Not every small town has a grocery store. And if it does, it's a small one that doesn't have all you need. Our school district is spread out over three different towns. Football games were not uncommonly over an hour away. It's a good thing our population is low or else we'd really be guzzling gas here. Per capita, I bet we use more gas than those out east. That's not even taking into account the farmers using their tractors and combines out in the field.

You’ll probably agree with me on this.

I absolutely agree. The gas situation is only going to get worse. And fast.

Steps can be taken to ease our country off, because as you said yourself, capitalism tends to be very interested in the short term, and as such, unrestrained, it can come crashing down.

I never said I advocated laissez-faire capitalism. I would just say that the close, hard look you would require for deregulation is the close, hard look I would require for regulation. In the cases of conserving our environment and weening ourselves off gas, the government needs to step in yesterday.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#145mercuryinkPosted 9/5/2011 7:51:10 PM
I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Even so, I still believe in personal responsibility.

Someone with personal responsibility is supposed to then clean the mess up. That's what responsibility is, owning up to a mistake and then rectifying it. How do you do that when errors involving tens of thousands, millions, of people affect billions? By taking responsibility in making sure that doesn't happen. And that means having the power to do so.

I think we should exercise prudence ourselves. I never said it was non-existent.

I'm sorry, prudence whose existence you would consider to be a surprise. If you were an agnostic atheist, and G-d popped up and gave you a weather show, that would be a surprise. You would not, however, keep kosher before then on the x% chance that G-d existed. That's what you're suggesting we do. Behave as though people were prudent, as though maybe they had learned their lesson, when there was a very good chance they have not, something you yourself admit is not the most likely scenario. And, according to these ideals, we have to let them keep sticking their fingers into the socket, because to bat their hands away, to put a cover on the outlet, denies them of some vaguely defined "freedom of idiocy". Call it an ideal if you want, admit that it's unrealistic (by all means, please, admit that it's not practical, that being pragmatic is not a concern). It's not much of an ideal to hold to.
---
Some people are proof that G-d exists; evolution would have prevented them.
New Jersey Devils -- Stanley Cup Champions -- 1995-2000-2003
#146cyclonekrusePosted 9/5/2011 8:16:11 PM
mercuryink posted...
Someone with personal responsibility is supposed to then clean the mess up. That's what responsibility is, owning up to a mistake and then rectifying it. How do you do that when errors involving tens of thousands, millions, of people affect billions? By taking responsibility in making sure that doesn't happen. And that means having the power to do so.

And the tens of thousands of individuals have to power to clean it up.

I'm sorry, prudence whose existence you would consider to be a surprise.

One I'm hopeful of. I guess I'm an optimist.

And, according to these ideals, we have to let them keep sticking their fingers into the socket, because to bat their hands away, to put a cover on the outlet, denies them of some vaguely defined "freedom of idiocy".

No, it's more like tough love. Get burned enough times and you'll learn eventually. I hope.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#147mercuryinkPosted 9/5/2011 8:29:32 PM
And the tens of thousands of individuals have to power to clean it up.

Unguided. Pissed off. Blaming each other. They have the power to do something, but that too, will probably need cleaning up.

No, it's more like tough love. Get burned enough times and you'll learn eventually. I hope.

He hopes. I trust in action and planning, not in hope. Hope is prayer-lite. G-d helps those who help themselves. I think we've gotten about all out of this exchange that we can. If you want the last word, you can have it.
---
Some people are proof that G-d exists; evolution would have prevented them.
New Jersey Devils -- Stanley Cup Champions -- 1995-2000-2003
#148cyclonekrusePosted 9/5/2011 8:56:28 PM
mercuryink posted...
Unguided. Pissed off. Blaming each other. They have the power to do something, but that too, will probably need cleaning up.

Not unlike the Dems and Repubs now, eh?

He hopes. I trust in action and planning, not in hope.

You can lead a horse to water... Plan all you want, people will find a way to foil your plans. At some point people have to, like you say, help themselves. Which is what I've been advocating all along.

I think we've gotten about all out of this exchange that we can. If you want the last word, you can have it.

And the last word shall be "defenestration."
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#149mercuryinkPosted 9/5/2011 9:07:36 PM
Not a bad last word.
---
Some people are proof that G-d exists; evolution would have prevented them.
New Jersey Devils -- Stanley Cup Champions -- 1995-2000-2003