|
Post by Doug on Apr 24, 2015 8:16:25 GMT -5
It's not a question of seatbelts or no seatbelts. It's a question of should it be a law. If you think it should be a law then you are saying it's important enough to kill people for not wearing a seatbelt.
Real seatbelts are one thing but the crap in normal cars is a joke. Put 5 point setbelts in cars and you will have something that will help.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2015 8:22:50 GMT -5
Real seatbelts are one thing but the crap in normal cars is a joke. Put 5 point setbelts in cars and you will have something that will help. Doug, that is just bullshit. Those "joke" seatbelts save countless lives every day. Ask any state trooper.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 24, 2015 8:37:41 GMT -5
Real seatbelts are one thing but the crap in normal cars is a joke. Put 5 point setbelts in cars and you will have something that will help. Doug, that is just bullshit. Those "joke" seatbelts save countless lives every day. Ask any state trooper. Why would you ask someone who's job is to shoot people who don't wear seatbelts. No submarine strap, head on crashes and you end up a blob wrapped around the brake pedal. And the attempts to make them fit everyone from 4'7" to 6'6" mean that they don't fit anyone. Even Chris at 5'2" has the shoulder strap in many cars going across her nose. But the question is do you think it's worth shooting people for not wearing seatbelts? If yes then it's a good law if no then it's a bad law.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2015 8:43:22 GMT -5
Doug, no officer of the law ever shot anyone for not wearing a seatbelt, but lots of them have pulled corpses out of ditches because the vehicle occupants weren't belted in. You might not like how they fit you, but in concert with air bags, three-point belts DO keep you from being ejected and in most cases from hitting anything like the dash.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 24, 2015 8:48:24 GMT -5
But if you define "socialism" as Social Security and public libraries, then yes, I support Social Security and Medicare and city buses and public parks and the Boston Common and even the VA, which is actually government-owned. I'm trying to get at where is the breaking point? At what point do you finally decide that the government has control or ownership of enough? Is there anything you think the private sector does better for the general welfare of the citizenry than does the government? Is there a guiding general philosophy that directs where you think the country should be headed? So you include Social Security and public libraries in your definition of socialism. Is "public" the same thing as "government"? Are unions socialist? Are banking regulations socialist? Are government subsidies through tax breaks government control? Is government funding of mass transit socialism? What about government funding of football stadiums? "Is there anything you think the private sector does better for the general welfare of the citizenry?" The private sector isn't interested in the general welfare of the citizenry. The private sector is only interested the welfare of its own small part of the private sector. That's the glory of the invisible hand. Any benefit to the citizenry is a coincidental by-product. Ask Jeff. I don't see any direct government ownership of industry in this country. Therefore socialism doesn't exist, does it? The Green Bay Packers are publicly owned. Are the Green Bay Packers socialist? I bet they are, I'm a Vikings fan. We know there ain't no government control, or any control, of the Vikings. "Government" is not some monolithic entity. My wife used to work for a private law firm that did a lot of tax increment financing and public/private partnerships. Is that government control? A lot of that money went to rich developers, though, so that's not socialism; it's only socialism if it helps regular people. Now she works for a non-profit that helps people with autism find jobs. Part of their funding comes from Voc Rehab, so that's definitely heavy handed government controlled socialism. My point is that you're phrasing the question is a way that can't be answered. There is no single breaking point, there are most likely many many tiny breaking points at different levels under different circumstances and for different people, and trying to lump them all together into some bumper sticker litmus test doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 24, 2015 8:54:24 GMT -5
I'm not aware of any Democrats that celebrate Bernie Sanders as a "leading spokesman." He is, hands down, the most quoted Democrat on facebook. Nobody else is even close. He's been interviewed on all the major networks as a potential presidential candidate. One of only two or three alternatives offered as challenging Clinton. And you won't get any argument from me about Clinton's chances of being the next president. I predicted 8 years ago that we'd never have another Republican president. The only way the next one won't be Clinton is if she faces a challenge from fellow Democrats. If the latest scandal disqualifies her, then maybe we'll have not just the first woman president, she'll also be our first Native American president. It will be SO cool. It will look like a papal choosing when they signal a Warren victory with smoke signals. Maybe tom-toms too. I think she should appear in full tribal regalia at the inauguration. Oh, we're getting our political news from facebook now. Warren's not running. You'll have a choice between Hillary, the first female President, or Heb Bush, the first Hispanic President.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 8:58:50 GMT -5
and trying to lump them all together into some bumper sticker litmus test doesn't work. I don't think economic models and philosophies are bumper sticker level thinking. I'm not asking anyone how black or white they are. I'm purposely trying to get definitions of what shade of gray folks are most comfortable with, and why.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 8:59:50 GMT -5
or Heb Bush, the first Hispanic President. I think you mean "Jueb Bush, the first Hispanic President"
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 9:03:54 GMT -5
"Is there anything you think the private sector does better for the general welfare of the citizenry?" The private sector isn't interested in the general welfare of the citizenry. The private sector is only interested the welfare of its own small part of the private sector. That's the glory of the invisible hand. Any benefit to the citizenry is a coincidental by-product. Ask Jeff. But why don't you think that there might be instances where less intervention in trade is in the public's best interest? Surely you do think that, don't you? And must what is in the public's best interest always be expressed in some progressive program whereby that welfare is expressly the stated goal, when one is able to vote, or NOT create yet one more program for exactly the same reason? When you were raising your kids, was your discipline of them the only thing you did in their best interest, or were you also expressing that "best interest" when you gave them more and more freedom?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 24, 2015 10:09:45 GMT -5
Bruce: Just in case your post wasn't meant as a joke, a dictionary is where you start to establish terms. And if the term is one with a considerable extension, you make it a historical dictionary like the OED or the unabridged Webster's Third, and, if necessary, you proceed to a specialized dictionary (e.g., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics), and eventually to whatever body of scholarship deals with the topic.
And if it wasn't a joke, I'd suggest getting some new writers.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 24, 2015 10:44:38 GMT -5
Bruce: Just in case your post wasn't meant as a joke, a dictionary is where you start to establish terms. And if the term is one with a considerable extension, you make it a historical dictionary like the OED or the unabridged Webster's Third, and, if necessary, you proceed to a specialized dictionary (e.g., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics), and eventually to whatever body of scholarship deals with the topic. And if it wasn't a joke, I'd suggest getting some new writers. I just though your comment was Orwellian. don't use a dictionary to find the meaning of a word, use the DNC daily talking points instead is how I read you. I know you believe yourself to be the only true source for definitions of terms, since you're educated and all but seriously, it sounded pretty idiotic, to me.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Apr 24, 2015 10:49:00 GMT -5
I look at Norway, which made the radical choice of nationalizing all its oil reserves. A lot of money. Free health care, free education, free pensions. Their business community loves it, because employees don't need to be paid for any of that. They are doing just fine. And all that wealth is getting redistributed. I would be very comfortable with that model. In the right circumstances. So, I don't get bent out of shape thinking there is a magic formula. But I'm certainly not afraid of government involvement for its own sake.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 24, 2015 10:53:22 GMT -5
I look at Norway, which made the radical choice of nationalizing all its oil reserves. A lot of money. Free health care, free education, free pensions. Their business community loves it, because employees don't need to be paid for any of that. They are doing just fine. And all that wealth is getting redistributed. I would be very comfortable with that model. In the right circumstances. So, I don't get bent out of shape thinking there is a magic formula. But I'm certainly not afraid of government involvement for its own sake. Nationalizing = stealing at the point of a gun So if government wants to steal your property and you don't want them to it's OK to kill them.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 11:05:35 GMT -5
I look at Norway, which made the radical choice of nationalizing all its oil reserves. A lot of money. Free health care, free education, free pensions. Their business community loves it, because employees don't need to be paid for any of that. They are doing just fine. And all that wealth is getting redistributed. I would be very comfortable with that model. In the right circumstances. So, I don't get bent out of shape thinking there is a magic formula. But I'm certainly not afraid of government involvement for its own sake. It might be interesting to see what happens with future immigration.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Apr 24, 2015 11:18:52 GMT -5
Everyone who's pro-socialism thinks they are getting Norway.
But then they get North Korea.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 24, 2015 11:36:52 GMT -5
It might be a matter of implementation and management rather than name and theory.
Norway manages the development and distribution of the oil resources within its borders. The exploration and extraction is efficient and by all accounts the profits are spread throughout the populace and benefit the populace.
Mexico manages the development and distribution of the oil resources within its borders. The exploration and extraction is inefficient and by all account the profits are spread thinly and unequally throughout the populace and benefit few.
Norway is doing a good job of it. Mexico's energy sector is corrupt and sliding steadily backwards in a shambles. Norway is better off doing it themselves rather than letting Exxon do it and then taxing Exxon. Mexico should have never tossed Exxon out. They aren't getting half of what they should be getting and what they do get is pilfered by sticky fingers.
In the words of the bard, "Case by Case".
.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 24, 2015 11:40:24 GMT -5
Jeff said it with more pith.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 24, 2015 11:58:48 GMT -5
Norway manages the development and distribution of the oil resources within its borders. The exploration and extraction is efficient and by all accounts the profits are spread throughout the populace and benefit the populace. Then there's the People's Republic of Alaska.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 24, 2015 12:07:23 GMT -5
Yep some are nicer than others. But the bottom line is to nationalize you have to steal it from the people that own it at the point of a gun. The guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his kids is nicer than the guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his drug habit.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 24, 2015 12:53:38 GMT -5
Jeff said it with more pith. Like I said in the mouse thread, "Pith on it."
|
|