RE: Bill of NON-Rights

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Bill of NON-Rights

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Bill of NON-Rights

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/11/2005 9:59:45 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raphael

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about capitalism.

OK, stop playing games. Are you a capitalist or not?

quote:

How about the environment indeed! I have plenty of personal experience with this. The business upstream from me is important politically, I and my family are not. For decades they've pumped sewage into our water, and they're completely shielded by the regulatory agency that goes by the orwellian title of 'Environmental Protection Agency.' Their arrogance and greed just recently cause the stream bed to rise by nearly a yard (among other things,) threatening a large portion of my land with flooding that I'm working daily to try and prevent. They are shielded from all liability in this. On the other hand if I go down there and tried to reverse the damage that was done - I'll be hauled off in handcuffs. And if I can't stop the flooding - that field will suddenly become a 'wetlands' and I won't be able to do anything with it at all, ever again.

I agree with you that the EPA is toothless. That doesn't mean all federal agencies have to be toothless: it means that in the current political environment, lobbies have been able to make a mockery of the EPA. But the fault isn't with the CONCEPT of the EPA. It's with the way our ELECTED administration has permitted it to be abused.

quote:

Without the EPA and the regulation you seem to naïvely think somehow protects the environment, I could at the very least mitigate some of that damage, and very likely also get a lawyer to take the case on a commission basis and sue these sons o' beeches for every penny they have. Knowing that, they would have had a great incentive to avoid doing the harm in the first place. The regulatory agencies shield *them* - not the environment.

Here's why I wonder how you imagine this ideal bottom-up society you've been talking about. How do you sue anyone without courts? OK, who constitutes the court? Who authorizes it? Who staffs it? Who enforces its decisions? I thought you said we can't rely on a top-down approach.

quote:

quote:

The only way to motivate businesses to give two shits about the environment is to regulate them.

No, the only way is to hold them liable for their actions. Regulation is simply a way to shield them from that liability.

Same problem: how do you hold them liable? You can't without a government, kiddo.

quote:

Think about what you're saying here. You've just jumped from the capitalist ditch into the socialist one.

To say someone has a right to something is to say they may morally demand it, and back up their demand with force.

You have a right to health care? Really? You have a right to force doctors to treat you, to force factory workers to produce the drugs you need, etc? I don't believe you do. I think what you're suggesting violates true human rights, necessarily and intrinsically.

I think you have a right to seek health care, to pursuade doctors to treat you, to offer those factory workers an incentive to produce what you need - by paying for them for their labour. I don't believe you have a right to hold a gun to their head and demand it - nor to deputise somone else to do it for you.

And, on a strictly practical level, when you nationalise health care, or schooling, what you wind up with is health care, or schooling, that serves the purposes of those at the top of the system - not the purposes of the customers the system is supposed to serve.

Well, you go on and on here and your argumentation is silly. I have a right to the fire department's services if my house burns down; that hardly translates into holding a gun to the fireman's head and making him put out my fire. Having a right to something is not the same thing as having a right to put a gun to someone's head in order to exercise that right.

quote:

quote:

That's about as silly as saying a doctor isn't really free to practice medicine as long as he has to be licensed. (Yeah, and there's another good example of how the economy needs more than just laissez-faire capitalism: would YOU go to an unlicensed doctor?)

The unspoken assumption here is that state licensing is the only possible form. That's clearly nonsense. You're positing a system with a single, monopoly licensing agency versus one with no licensing agency whatsoever. That's a straw man. A free society can produce a number of competing licensing agencies, which have to compete and therefore have incentives to improve. A state agency, on the other hand, allows no competition, and has no incentive to do anything - except, of course, to serve the politically powerful.

Are you serious? We should have competing medical licensing boards? How about competing Federal Bureaus of Investigation? Competing National Security Agencies? How about competing Justice Departments--or, while we're at it, competing courts, so if you can't sue that company you just complained about in one court, you can take try your luck in another one. If you're really a proponent of that kind of anarchy, I don't think you and I can have a productive conversation.

quote:

I've got an idea, why don't you go do a little research and tell us just what mandates schools in this country are required to comply with? After you read through them all (budget two or three years for this, we're talking about a pretty big stack of paper here) you could come back and tell us just how much of it has anything to do with providing a useful education. And then you could explain just why you think a free school, competing for students with other free schools, would need to be ordered to comply with that tiny subset of the regulations in effect.

Yeah, you know, your aggression and sarcasm don't exactly serve as a substitute for persuasion. Common mistake. If someone disagrees with you, assuming a patronizing tone is not a good way to convince him that he's wrong. All it does is massage your self-esteem and avoid a serious conversation. (It's an especially weak strategy when you're talking to someone who doesn't think he's less knowledgeable than you.)

Your argument seems to be that because you don't agree with all the mandates that schools are required to follow (and I don't agree with all of them either), the very concept of government mandates must therefore be invalid. That's a silly fallacy. You did the same number up there on the EPA: because the EPA has become a farce, you're content to say that the very concept of an EPA is inherently a farce. And that just doesn't follow.

Lam

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 6/11/2005 10:01:18 PM >

(in reply to Raphael)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/11/2005 10:43:38 PM

Raphael

Posts: 263
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raphael

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about capitalism.

OK, stop playing games. Are you a capitalist or not?

Excuse me again, but who's playing games here? I never said word one about being a capitalist. You claimed to be a 'capitalist too' without me having any part of it. If you can't figure out the answer to your question by reading what I've already posted, why would I waste any more time addressing you?

quote:

I agree with you that the EPA is toothless.

Another example of the exact same behaviour. Is it a calculated attempt to render discussion impossible?

Where did I say the EPA was toothless? Of course they aren't toothless. They can haul me away in handcuffs if I displease them, that hardly sounds toothless to me!

The problem is quite the opposite. They have very big, very scary fangs. And they're out there every day doing damage with them.

quote:

That doesn't mean all federal agencies have to be toothless: it means that in the current political environment, lobbies have been able to make a mockery of the EPA. But the fault isn't with the CONCEPT of the EPA. It's with the way our ELECTED administration has permitted it to be abused.

No, you're wrong yet again. Yes, the lobbies make a mockery of the purported goals of regulatory agencies, as does a phenomenon known as 'regulatory capture' that you could go read up on if you had any interest in understanding these things as well. But this is not an artifact of the 'current political environment' - it's the nature of politics itself.

In effect, you're looking at the natural, normal, predictable consequences of a regulatory regime, and trying to spin it as a freak, a fluke, a consequence of some particular, momentary flaw in your otherwise beautiful system. But it's not a momentary flaw, it's an eternal one. It's inherent in the system.

quote:

Here's why I wonder how you imagine this ideal bottom-up society you've been talking about. How do you sue anyone without courts? OK, who constitutes the court? Who authorizes it? Who staffs it? Who enforces its decisions? I thought you said we can't rely on a top-down approach.

Slow down there bucko, one step at a time. We had courts long before we had the EPA (in fact long before we had the federal government at all.) The courts were capable of, and did, a better job than the EPA is capable of, or ever will be capable of. So when I question the EPA, you turn around and question the courts?

I think you're just trying to confuse the issue. I'm talking about the real word, not the platonic realm. Don't throw away a solution that works occasionally and replace it with one that never works, then justify the new one by pointing out that the old one was not perfect .

quote:

Well, you go on and on here and your argumentation is silly. I have a right to the fire department's services if my house burns down; that hardly translates into holding a gun to the fireman's head and making him put out my fire. Having a right to something is not the same thing as having a right to put a gun to someone's head in order to exercise that right.

Sure it is.

Remember that the rights found in our original Constitution and the Bill of Rights were, with a single exception, 'negative rights' - the right to NOT be forbidden to speak, to NOT be forbidden to assemble, to NOT be forbidden to bear arms, etc. No one can effectively violate those rights without using force to do so. The only obligation they place on someone else is to refrain from using force against you. Sure, you could tell me to shut up, but I'll simply ignore you. And in fact, you have a right to tell me to shut up, just as I have a right to tell you to go jump off a cliff. You're not really violating my right until you use force to stop me from speaking. And if you do - I have a right to defend myself.

Now, you say you have a right to the fire departments services? That is a positive right. You're claiming an obligation on other people - not simply to refrain from assaulting you - but to go out and do something specific and active. An obligation for them to serve you in a specific way.

Now you may have such a right, but it's not a basic human right - it's a matter of contract and consent. If you're paying them to protect you, and they're taking your money for that purpose - sure, they have an obligation to live up to their end of the contract when and if you need them. But that's an obligation they've taken on themselves by consent, not one that exists simply because you're a human being.

Health care, and schooling, fall into that same class. A right to them doesn't merely imply an obligation on other people to avoid attacking you - it implies an obligation for them to actively serve you.

quote:

Are you serious?

Absolutely. Are you? You seriously believe that the customer is served by the creation of monopolies?

quote:

Yeah, you know, your aggression and sarcasm don't exactly serve as a substitute for persuasion.

You know, I do. I'm hoping this means you've caught on too.

quote:

Common mistake. If someone disagrees with you, assuming a patronizing tone is not a good way to convince him that he's wrong.

No shit.

Putting words in his mouth and arguing straw men doesn't tend to make you many friends either.

Glad I could help you to see that.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 62

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/11/2005 11:06:53 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Sigh. As usual, people aren't interested in having a real conversation on here. They're just interested in trying to show that the other guy is an idiot, and that they have the answers to the world's problems. If you'd like to revisit this conversation without the insults, let me know. Until then, have fun in your non-regulated world.

I'm still wondering how you can have a court without a government, but I guess I'm never going to get the answer to that one. I'm talking to someone who won't even admit that he believes in capitalism.

(in reply to Raphael)

Profile

Post #: 63

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/11/2005 11:38:26 PM

Raphael

Posts: 263
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline

I'll tell you a little story.

Wise old farmer is out working his field. Young man comes walking down the road with a pack on his back, covered in dust.

Young man walks up and asks if he could impose for a drink of water. Farmer tells him sure, take his pack off and rest for a minute, draws some water from the well. They start talking.

Turns out the young man is a bit down on his luck, carrying all his possessions on his back. Hoping to get a new start in the next town down the road, but he doesn't know anyone there. He asks what the the people are like there, are they good folks?

Instead of answering immediately the old farmer asks what the folks were like where the boy came from. Well, the boys face lights up, and he talks for several minutes about the great folks back home and how nice they were, and pleasant, and good neighbors, always watching out for you, and how sad it was he had to leave them behind.

Farmer nods and says he thinks the boy will like the new town then, folks are a lot like that there. The boy takes heart, finishes up his water, straps his pack on, and heads on down the road.

A few days later, a different boy comes down the road, in the same condition. Again the farmer gives him water, invites him to rest for a bit and strikes up a conversation. And sure enough, this boy is also down on his luck, packing all his worldly belongings with him, and hoping to settle in the next town down the road. And he is also wondering about what sort of people he'll find there.

Once again, the farmer avoids the question at first, and instead asks the boy about the people back home. Well, the boys face darkens, and you can see the anger in it. He tells what a bunch of creeps they were back there, unpleasant and inhospitable and untrustworthy and always up in your business... he sure is glad to be rid of them. But what about this town up ahead?

And the old farmer looks at the boy sadly and says he's afraid he won't like that next town at all, folks are just the same way up there.

-R

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 64

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/11/2005 11:47:07 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Ya, OK, if that was supposed to educate me, it failed.

Still wondering how you're going to sue that company without a government. Buena suerte.

(in reply to Raphael)

Profile

Post #: 65

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/11/2005 11:51:59 PM

Raphael

Posts: 263
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline

Y tu también.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 66

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/12/2005 6:39:54 AM

kisshou

Posts: 2425
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline

Respectfully to both Lordandmaster and Raphael,

What does it take to institute change to make something better?

(in reply to Raphael)

Profile

Post #: 67

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/13/2005 10:01:57 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

kisshou,

I'm not L&M or Raphael, but I'll take a shot at your question.

quote:

What does it take to institute change to make something better?

Perspective.

In college, the graduated tax structure seems appropriate. The more you make the greater percentage of the money you earn is taken by he Government. Sounds fair. The Government needs the money to subsidize schools and social programs. If you work hard and do a good job you'll make it in the US. If you are lazy or just incompetent you'll get fired (except for some tenured professors -lol) Some people just can't take care of themselves, and that's what government it for - to take care of it's citizens.

Two years after graduation your renting an apartment barely making "ends meat" but you are working for a salary that somehow qualifies you as "wealthy and you are being taxed at +40% by the Federal government plus you are paying sales tax, commuter tax, and $.75 of the cost for each gallon of gas. Damn! That's just not fair! The government needs to get off my back. These welfare programs are a drain on the economy. If people wanted to work there are jobs out there. Just look at all the illegal immigrants trying to sneak in the country from Mexico. DAMN!

Two years later you are now married and your combined income is well over the high end tax bracket, but your parents "lend" you some money (Which already has passed through the taxing system.) and you are able to buy a home. Ummmm, you can deduct interest, and local property taxes from your taxable income! Wow - lets get the BIGGEST home that we qualify. Wait - my 1981 Gremlin doesn't start anymore, but if I "donate" it I can write it off at book value. What else can I "donate" to these tax exempt institutions? I also heard about some off-shore investment opportunities that are triple tax deferred. Lets have some more deductions - I mean kids. After all our property taxes are paying for the school anyway. Effective tax rate 22%. I can live with that! This is a GREAT country with plenty of opportunities!

Fast forward 40 or so years, and retirement is upon you. Damn! We have no kids at home anymore, since we kicked out our daughter, her brats, and that lazy good for nothing that got her pregnant. Why should I have to pay property taxes! And DAMN - our mortgage is paid in full, and there is no more interest deduction. Meanwhile, we paid 12% of our income into Social Security over the past 40 years and they are paying us $1,200 / month?!!!! If we put that money into the most conservative IRA I'd have over $10 Million in the bank! Now, I have to get a part time job at Wal-Mart wearing that stupid "greeters" vest just to pay for my trips to Mexico to get cheap prescription drugs! We need government sponsored universal health care. Property taxes should only be paid if you have kids going to a school, besides, the schools sucks because of all the illegal aliens from Mexico sending their kids. What ever happened to this country!

"Better" is relative. Most of the times everything is always "better" for someone.

(in reply to kisshou)

Profile

Post #: 68

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/13/2005 11:10:09 AM

kisshou

Posts: 2425
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline

Mercnbeth,

that was sooo fun to read, it was insightful!! If I could write half as well as you I would have done a tongue in cheek essay on two well spoken , intelligent men , we could even call one Democrat and one Republican and how they started out sitting down having a discussion of issues , each making interesting though provoking points but somehow it degenerated into insults and instead of focusing on the issues it became some kind of weird judgement on each others character. Since I can't write half as well as you I posted my semi-rhetorical question.

The burning question I have been mulling over lately without coming up with an answer to is : Do you think it is better to pick one issue/problem and focus your time and energy towards that or to take an interest in all the issues and devote little bits of time and energy to each of them? Which would accomplish more?

_____________________________

ETAONI

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 69

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/13/2005 12:18:45 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Do you think it is better to pick one issue/problem and focus your time and energy towards that or to take an interest in all the issues and devote little bits of time and energy to each of them? Which would accomplish more?

kisshou,
Thanks for your comments.

The problem with your question is there is no one "issue/problem". Technology and communication has made the US, and the world too small to isolate a specific problem and solve it. That really is the problem. I always wonder if there are really more child abductions now as when I was wandering the streets as a 10 year old; or is it just that the news industry can be "Live" from anywhere in the US where one occurs to make it "BREAKING NEWS!

I think the biggest single problem is that no one is communicating that there is no "one single problem". National messengers or "spokesmen" are too often single issue focused. The cause is that usually to get a national audience he/she has become a pawn to the people and companies who funded his/her rise to national prominence.

On the other side of the issue, can anyone rise to national prominence without being indebted to someone/something? Is is really that we don't have a better qualified candidates than George Bush or John Kerry or is everyone else too independent or too afraid to suffer the consequences of scrutiny under the media microscope?

What's needed is for someone to clearly and precisely communicate to the people of the US that there is this relationship between all the issues of the day. Communication needs to be in a manner that it reaches the full range of MTV channels - from Current to Classic, from Christian Sounds to Gangster Rap; using all the necessary special effects and graphics. Document the choices, for instance - Save the last 10 blind swamp newts or drill for oil to make us less dependent on foreign sources. Or, Eliminate all tax exemptions for religions and all other "Non-Profit" organizations and fund a new national social service organization with the resultant tax dollars from the organization and the individuals who won't be able to take the exemptions.

Then once all the interrelated issues are documented - focus on them every day. Let the choices and options be known. We need a "great communicator" in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, except with the vitality and ability to juggle all these issues while communicating why the pragmatic decisions have been made.

The image that comes to mind comes from something I saw on TV when I was young. I would guess that you are too young to remember the old TV show "The Ed Sullivan Show". It was a variety show, that besides having very well know people and acts such as the Beatles (Paul McCarthy's group before Wings) he had obscure old time Vegas style lounge acts, puppeteers, acrobats, etc.

Once such act was a juggler who didn't juggle balls or anything like that, but instead would spin plates at the end of sticks. He would line up a dozen or so flexible sticks and spin plates on them. The trick was to get all the plates spinning at the same time. The juggler would run back and forth while "Flight of the Bumblebee" was played by the studio orchestra, and re-energize the plates as gravity caused the inertia to wane and some plates started to wobble. Some would drop and fall and he'd have to replace them, but eventually they all were spinning to the delight of the studio audience and Ed.

Any leader today must be like that juggler. He must be aware of all the plates that are spinning and how to keep them spinning. He must know that sometimes some are going to break anyway and have to be replaced. He must appreciate that some need to be sacrificed so they all don't fall. But most of all he must realize there is not just one plate spinning. Focusing on one issue is like focusing on one spinning plate. Eventually the other plates start to crash, and even if the plate you save is a family heirloom, the audience starts to boo and look for someone with a different act. Lately everyone on the national scene has been a one-plate type juggler and if you look at the bottom of the plate closely you'll see a sponsor's label and the reason why that plate is so important to the performer.

(in reply to kisshou)

Profile

Post #: 70

RE: Bill of NON-Rights - 6/13/2005 12:57:27 PM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou
Do you think it is better to pick one issue/problem and focus your time and energy towards that or to take an interest in all the issues and devote little bits of time and energy to each of them? Which would accomplish more?

Goodness - I wasn't going to reply to this because I thought I would be too cynical. But I think Merc has out-cynic-ed me.

Kisshou, when all is said and done, more is said than done. Lots of folks get involved in issues, lots of folks express their opinions... but actually producing change is pretty tough.

Accomplishing change is most likely if you work on small scale projects - producing change at the local level in tangible ways. But its a question of satisfaction.... what will make you happier?

Will devoting yourself to a project, getting to know personally the players make you happy? Or would you prefer to dip in and out of larger projects and issues as your changing level of interest dictates?

< Message edited by onceburned -- 6/13/2005 12:58:17 PM >

(in reply to kisshou)

Profile

Post #: 71