communism in america revisited

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

communism in america revisited

Postby kiryan » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:35 pm

exercept from http://www.rense.com/general75/aabol.htm

1st Plank of Communism: Abolish Private Property. This is being accomplished by land use laws, property taxes, zoning laws, environmental laws, etc.

2nd Plank of Communism: A heavy progressive income tax. There was NO income tax until 1913 when it began at 1%, never to go above 2%. What are you paying?

3rd Plank of Communism: Abolish all rights of inheritance. Today, we have heavy legal and probate fees plus inheritance taxes.

4th Plank of Communism: Confiscate all property of emigrants and rebels (anyone who speaks out against the government). Unconstitutional Regional Government has been installed which controls all of the physical, social and economic assets of all the counties.

5th Plank of Communism: Centralization of Credit in the hands of the state. In America this was done in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act. At first, it was simply the International Bankers who controlled the Federal Reserve; but by 1933, the U.S. was bankrupt and these bankers foreclosed on America. They created a new form of government called Socialism that has replaced our once Constitutional Republic. Public Law 91-151 prohibits any person to extend credit without a special license: a $1,000 fine or one year in prison could result (not yet enforced). A Social Security number is required in a business transaction.

6th Plank of Communism: Control all means of Transportation and Communication. The mass media has been in the hands of the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations for years [One of the Communist Rules of Revolution was to get control of all media and use it for their propaganda]. Presidential Executive Orders #10999 and #10995 provide for the take-over of all transportation and communications. They provide for the regulating of airlines, railroads, highways and the news media. Look at Homeland Security and the military at airports.

7th Plank of Communism: All production is to be controlled BY the State. There is a massive number of federal guidelines that industry must follow. The federal government is now involved in over 850 businesses. The Federal Bureaucracy forces farmers to grow [or not grow] specific crops and sell them below production costs. No wonder thousands of farmers leave the land every year and conglomerates take over. We have Corporate Socialism in America!!!

8th Plank of Communism: Equal liability of ALL to labor. Women are forced out of the home to work just to survive. Equal opportunity employment for both sexes. Executive Order #11000 will force civilians into government work brigades.

9th Plank of Communism: Combine agriculture with manufacturing, thus abolishing the distinction between town and country. We have seen the emergence of Urban Renewal, Population Control, Metro Councils, Regional Government Planning Programs, and the plans to eliminate Counties, Local Government and State Borders.

10th Plank of Communism: Control ALL Education. Federal "aid" to education means we have government-controlled schools and curriculum.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:40 pm

gonna paraphrase a story i heard on the radio

how to catch a wild pig

put grain out in the field
after a while build one length of fence, keep feeding grain
after a while, build 2 more lengths of fence at 90 degrees, keep feeding grain
after a while, build the enclosing length of fence, without a gate, keep feeding gran
after a while build the gate but leave it open, keep feeding grain
close the gate

three cheers for national healthcare, social security, welfare, government jobs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:09 am

kiryan wrote:gonna paraphrase a story i heard on the radio

how to catch a wild pig

put grain out in the field
after a while build one length of fence, keep feeding grain
after a while, build 2 more lengths of fence at 90 degrees, keep feeding grain
after a while, build the enclosing length of fence, without a gate, keep feeding gran
after a while build the gate but leave it open, keep feeding grain
close the gate

three cheers for national healthcare, social security, welfare, government jobs


Don't be ridiculous! Everyone knows you only need 3 walls to contain humans, which is how we got cubicles!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:11 am

O bah I just LOL'd in my cubicle

While on a call

ass :P
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:37 am

You complain when I argue, you complain when I joke... I just can't win. *pout*
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:08 am

Heheh :)
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."



-Italian Proverb
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:28 am

When you refer to American politics as communism, I tune you out.

There's no reason to bother having a discussion with someone who can't even get through his post's title without descending into hyperbole.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
selerial
Sojourner
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:42 pm
Location: Allston, MA
Contact:

Postby selerial » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:46 pm

One of my friends always used to growl about "Soviet Russia" and how the US was becoming the same. I've never seen it myself. But I do have one gripe.

The RIAA has completely killed modern music, and more specifically modern rock. I can't tell one damned singer from another these days, and there's no spark in any of the guitar or bass work either. Why are we facing such a bleak Communist music industry these days?? Let's focus on the real issue here!

(semi sarcasm... yet not)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:42 pm

so you are saying that as long as we can vote, we can never be communist huh?

Funny not one of the "planks" of communism from the communism manifesto deals with how you get there. It just lets you know when you are there.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:52 pm

The transportation one is interesting.

It's been well established you don't have a right to drive. You have to have insurance to operate a motor vehicle (the only method of transportation on freeways) and you have to pay for a license. So lets say you want to go to the next city over, but you can't use the roads. How exactly do you accomplish this other than tromping through other people's property? And if they have no trespassing posted? Isn't hitch hiking illegal in a lot of states?
selerial
Sojourner
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:42 pm
Location: Allston, MA
Contact:

Postby selerial » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:15 pm

kiryan wrote:The transportation one is interesting.

It's been well established you don't have a right to drive. You have to have insurance to operate a motor vehicle (the only method of transportation on freeways) and you have to pay for a license. So lets say you want to go to the next city over, but you can't use the roads. How exactly do you accomplish this other than tromping through other people's property? And if they have no trespassing posted? Isn't hitch hiking illegal in a lot of states?


It's easy to invoke a lot of rhetoric about things like this, but it doesn't make them especially real (the boogeymen stealing our capacity to exist).

I went with a friend to a concert in Hartford, Connecticuit. After the show, his slave cylinder died and the car was stuck in Hartford. We walked a good 5-6 miles in Hartford between a hotel, a repair shop, and a bus station to get back to Boston, and then another mile or two in Boston to get back to my car, which I then drove to work. Apparently I just did a bunch of illegal or impossible things that night and following day, judging from your post.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:15 am

kiryan wrote:so you are saying that as long as we can vote, we can never be communist huh?

Funny not one of the "planks" of communism from the communism manifesto deals with how you get there. It just lets you know when you are there.

Nope. I'm saying that the politics and economy of the United States are so far removed from communism that to refer to them as such is nonsensical hyperbole. Universal health care and minimum wage are not communism. The idea of communal property and the abolishment of wages entirely are communism.

Let me know when you see a politican suggest that all American citizens pool their respective resources into a collective. Then we'll start talking about communism.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:36 am

kiryan wrote:The transportation one is interesting.

It's been well established you don't have a right to drive. You have to have insurance to operate a motor vehicle (the only method of transportation on freeways) and you have to pay for a license. So lets say you want to go to the next city over, but you can't use the roads. How exactly do you accomplish this other than tromping through other people's property? And if they have no trespassing posted? Isn't hitch hiking illegal in a lot of states?


So your world is so far removed from reality that you've never heard of planes, trains and taxis? What about hot air balloons? Hangliders? Boats?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:41 am

Sarvis wrote:So your world is so far removed from reality that you've never heard of planes, trains and taxis?


Aye, let's hear it for planes, trains, and plantains!
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:18 pm

planes are definitely regulated, but if you had private air strips and kept under a certain altitude, I suppose thats still "free"

trains I don't know, maybe they are truly private, but I doubt it. I know city governments put restrictions on trains all the time hours they can roll through their town speeds ect.

boats is still an area of relative freedom, I'll give you that.

--

Selerial if you were walking down a freeway its illegal, but I think you missed the point. I was thinking about a situation where the government took away your access to the roads (since it is a privilege to drive and the government owns the roads). I suppose I hyperfocused on driving since you could walk down a road, but if you weren't allowed to use the roads at all, how would you get around? You'd have to walk through other people's property.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:39 pm

kiryan wrote: You'd have to walk through other people's property.


Wow, way to <b>completely</b> miss my point.

Look, you're approaching this from an idiotic angle. If the government wanted to keep us from traveling they could, and it wouldn't matter what transportation options were currently regulated or not. If the government wants to, they put up a fucking wall and put guards around it to shoot anyone who comes close. That's how we got east germany. That's why the concept of a wall scares you so, though I bet you don't live outside under the stars for your precious anarchistic "freedom."

Regulating what can be on the road <i>so that it doesn't cause accidents</i> is hardly the kind of oppression you imagine it to be.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:08 am

Ragorn wrote:When you refer to American politics as communism, I tune you out.

There's no reason to bother having a discussion with someone who can't even get through his post's title without descending into hyperbole.


I agree. But I would also like to note that I've seen very tactful, intelligent people have good discussions with people that decend into hyperbole.

I just don't think that any of us here have that kind of patience. Except for Corth. He's just expensive.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
selerial
Sojourner
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:42 pm
Location: Allston, MA
Contact:

Postby selerial » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:23 pm

kiryan wrote:Selerial if you were walking down a freeway its illegal, but I think you missed the point. I was thinking about a situation where the government took away your access to the roads (since it is a privilege to drive and the government owns the roads). I suppose I hyperfocused on driving since you could walk down a road, but if you weren't allowed to use the roads at all, how would you get around? You'd have to walk through other people's property.


No, I didn't miss the point. I understand that you seem to be implying that the government has a "Big Brother" type control over transportation already, or that such control could be enacted at the drop of a hat. I was demonstrating that I participated in interstate travel in a car, foot travel around two cities, interstate travel in a bus, subway travel in a city (didn't mention that one), and then used my very own personal car to travel from a private residence to a place of work, and that no G-men, FBI, CIA, KGB, or any other government entity stepped out of the shadows and questioned my need to do any of those things. Also, you're arguing a hypothetical situation that simply doesn't exist in the real world. There are sidewalks along roads for a reason, and you can't really have landed in the middle of a bunch of private property without getting IN there in the first place, at which point you either go back the way you came, or else you're probably being screwed by the locals, not the government.

Also....

It's been well established you don't have a right to drive. You have to have insurance to operate a motor vehicle (the only method of transportation on freeways) and you have to pay for a license.


To quote George Carlin (on a different subject) "spooky language!" But what does it mean? We don't have a right to drive? I'd say that we DO have the right to drive. The trouble with driving is that a car is a heavy device that propels itself at high speeds and is in use around pedestrians. Which I guess begs the question, if you dislike the idea of a liscense would you realistically, truly, honestly say "I want to be able to use a car without training and if I kill people, destroy my car, or otherwise participate in dangerous activity with it, I want to be able to get another one." Of course, if you're objecting simply to the processing fee, well, that's just government for you. It still does not imply that the government doesn't want you to get a car or use one.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:10 pm

selerial wrote:[We don't have a right to drive? I'd say that we DO have the right to drive.


No, we don't. Heck, any driving safety course will tell you driving is a privilege, not a right. The government can take your license away in cases of drunk driving and other violations of law.

One inherent problem with Libertarians is that they don't think laws should be enacted to prevent things from happening. The answer to the situation you brought up will probably be "the driver who used his car without training and hurt people should be arrested for hurting people." To me this is utterly retarded, because you've allowed people to be hurt and killed when it could have been prevented by requiring training in the first place.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
selerial
Sojourner
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:42 pm
Location: Allston, MA
Contact:

Postby selerial » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:15 pm

Sarvis wrote:
selerial wrote:[We don't have a right to drive? I'd say that we DO have the right to drive.


No, we don't. Heck, any driving safety course will tell you driving is a privilege, not a right. The government can take your license away in cases of drunk driving and other violations of law.


Let me put it this way: basically everyone within the sphere of my family and friends that is of legal driving age has a liscense and either a car or access to use one. I already understand that driving a car requires a certain level of "responsibility", but to me that's an entirely different concept from a privilege. A privilege is generally something that a select few people have access to based upon exceeding certain standards. When anyone can get a car and a liscense, it's really not a privilege, it's more like a resource along the lines of water, electricity, gas, etc. When a training instructor takes a fresh driver and tells them that it's a privilege to drive, they're really just trying to make the driver understand that they need to use their one ton high-speed battering ram responsibly.

And then if the government takes your liscense away because you WEREN'T acting responsibly, that still doesn't imply that everyone else is privileged, just that one person was irresponsible, got caught, and is being more sternly taught responsibility.

One inherent problem with Libertarians is that they don't think laws should be enacted to prevent things from happening. The answer to the situation you brought up will probably be "the driver who used his car without training and hurt people should be arrested for hurting people." To me this is utterly retarded, because you've allowed people to be hurt and killed when it could have been prevented by requiring training in the first place.


Now I'm a little bit confused, as I'm not sure if this was directed at me, others in the thread, or was just a generalized rant. I'm also not sure if I'm following you in regards to your conclusion, because the point of view that I'm supporting here is basically the same, that a liscense merely represents the government attempting to require training to avoid wanton slaughter on the roads. Which... it seems like uh. Yeah, dunno. I think we're actually agreeing, for the most part, but I'm not 100% sure.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:15 pm

responding to the libertarian comment

a couple of pedophiles hung out on beaches with tents and molested kids right on the beach. Result, a law prohibiting any structure that you couldn't see through from ground to ceiling to the other side. It was already illegal to molest kids, now people have to go out and buy special structures like EZ ups if they want shade on the beach.

No alcohol in parks / beaches / public places because people get rowdy and do things against the law.
Public forest access gated and locked during the winter so idiots won't drive down them in a civic and die.

A proposed law in Oregon would require you to rent / purchase a GPS type rescue beacon before ascending the taller mountains.

Why does the public at large have to suffer these laws because some bad/stupid people did some bad/stupid things? This stuff all costs money and thereby definitely creates "access" issues for poorer people. Wee should treat exceptions as exceptions, not add to the hundreds of thousands of laws that already exist and create additional costs for equipment / government jobs.

The first argument is usually public safety and to this I say don't restrict everyone just because its easier. There are so many laws trying to treat a symptom rather than address the problem. Alcohol is not a problem, people who misuse alcohol are a problem. Your kid getting molested on the beach is not because there are tents, its because of poor parents and pedophiles. But people don't want to blame themselves and there is always someone hoping to use these issues for personal gain (politics).

The other common argument is to reduce costly rescues / patrols ect... People responsible for their own actions, if you go out on the beach alone late at night and get mugged you're kinda dumb. You should have the right to go up into the mountains in the winter, but if you turn down the wrong road and die its a tragedy not the governments fault for not having the resources to find you or to have prevented you from going up there in the first place. The courts have already established that the police/governmenbt do not have an obligation to protect any specific person, so why do we keep creating more and more laws designed to protect us from ourselves?

People need to take responsibility for their actions, and society needs to treat exceptions like exceptions.
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:28 pm

Kiryan,

This is my first, and most likely last foray into this thread but your argument is flawed.

We have to have those kind of laws, because as a people we need to be coddled. For christ sake, we have to have a law to tell people to buckle up. Something that saves their lives, we have to have a law about it.

Closing off areas of forest during winter? Good, someone died, someone will again. People en masse are stupid. Truly. And it was the people themselves that created most of these laws because someone frviously(sp) sued a person or goverment body.

I had this hot coffee given to me, and spilled it and burnt myself. That's McDonalds fault. I didn't realize coffee was hot.

I ran over my child when I backed up in my new SUV and she died. It's the salesman's fault for not telling me about additional backup cameras on this model if I wanted to pay for it.

All these BS lawsuits are what's killing is. It's not the goverment for the majority. It's the goverment having to protect it's own ass against people trying to blame someone else for problems they, themself created.
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:31 pm

regarding the comments about communism,

restrictions for the "public good" are the planks in the fence we are freely building around ourselves. What plank has ever been removed? Our so called freedom has more restrictions year after year.

Do you think China enacts all sorts of totalitarian laws and restricts access to Internet content because its bad for people? They fully believe that this stuff harms their society at large and they are probably right (to some degree about moral corruption) and are trying to "protect" themselves. Same thing with a lot of Islamic countries.

I think China actually spends more time thinking about the public than our politicians do. They just have a different mindset as to what degree they can infringe on personal "freedoms" and to what degree they are obligated to "protect".
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:00 pm

kiryan wrote:regarding the comments about communism,

restrictions for the "public good" are the planks in the fence we are freely building around ourselves. What plank has ever been removed?


I dunno, when was the last time you got arrested for kissing in public? Or have seen someone branded for adultery? Hell, at least in my state women are allowed to be topless in public as of a couple years ago. Prohibition was repealed, and rather quickly at that.

Sounds like you're just making up more rhetoric, while ignoring all the walls you build around yourself.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:06 pm

I'll disagree that we need these laws. People need to be held responsible for their actions if they are illegal not a bunch of laws to prevent you from getting into those situations.

Seat belts, absolutely disagree. If you want to take the risk I think you should. You shouldn't have to pay for seatbelts in your car, you shouldn't have to wear them if you don't want. I might agree that children under 18 have to since they aren't capable of making decisions, then again I might not.

Lawsuits and the court as a major "cause" sure. However, more responsibility lies in the policy makers over response to an issue / judgement. Exceptions are exceptions, but law makers take exceptions and turn them into political capital to create some new law they can put on their resume. And the ultimate true responsibility lies with all of us who just accept these restrictions in the interests of the "public good".
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:18 pm

i knew someone was going to bring up prohibition. and yes there are a few discriminatory laws that have been repealed for the better. I would complain about those laws as well. Dancing should never have been something covered by a law as well as anal sex ect.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:52 pm

kiryan wrote:i knew someone was going to bring up prohibition. and yes there are a few discriminatory laws that have been repealed for the better. I would complain about those laws as well. Dancing should never have been something covered by a law as well as anal sex ect.


I never said bad laws didn't get passed, but than can be and will continue to be repealed or simply unenforced. Acting as if every law passed is some plank in a wall around your personal liberties is still retarded.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:19 am

kiryan wrote:i knew someone was going to bring up prohibition. and yes there are a few discriminatory laws that have been repealed for the better. I would complain about those laws as well. Dancing should never have been something covered by a law as well as anal sex ect.


You're just presenting a straw man anyway. The situation which was brought up involved someone without any training to drive a car hurting or killing people, and you responded with a litany of laws against people harming themselves. How about the original situation? Why do you see it as beneficial to punish people after they cause deaths, rather than prevent those deaths in the first place?

<b>selerial</b>

Sorry, was busy at work so didn't get a chance to reply.

1) Driving is a privilege, a Right has a much stronger backing and is generally considered as something that can't be taken away. The Bill of Rights enumerates these. You won't find operation of a motor vehicle. You earn the privilege by passing a driving test, showing that you are capable of handling the privilege. Rarity has nothing to do with something being a privilege.

2) I was agreeing with you, and ranting at the Libertarians as usual. Sorry if I confused you.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
selerial
Sojourner
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:42 pm
Location: Allston, MA
Contact:

Postby selerial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:40 pm

Sarvis wrote:1) Driving is a privilege, a Right has a much stronger backing and is generally considered as something that can't be taken away. The Bill of Rights enumerates these. You won't find operation of a motor vehicle. You earn the privilege by passing a driving test, showing that you are capable of handling the privilege. Rarity has nothing to do with something being a privilege.


While I can't argue that driving is in the Bill of Rights, I'm thinking we're going to have to agree to disagree about driving being a privilege. After all, we certainly do have the Right to Bear Arms... and yet you need a license and training to be able to legally have a gun, and having a gun in public is generally frowned upon. A (relatively) small percentage of the population owns a gun. A large percentage of the population owns a car, and having one in public is quite ordinary. So a huge amount of people are privileged, and yet a small amount of people act upon their Rights? It's just semantics.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:54 pm

Legality and logic are not the same thing. You can't win an argument about one with the other.

The law isn't logical!
Your logic doesn't follow the law!

Both arguments are equally useless in any given situation.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:12 pm

selerial wrote:
Sarvis wrote:1) Driving is a privilege, a Right has a much stronger backing and is generally considered as something that can't be taken away. The Bill of Rights enumerates these. You won't find operation of a motor vehicle. You earn the privilege by passing a driving test, showing that you are capable of handling the privilege. Rarity has nothing to do with something being a privilege.


While I can't argue that driving is in the Bill of Rights, I'm thinking we're going to have to agree to disagree about driving being a privilege. After all, we certainly do have the Right to Bear Arms... and yet you need a license and training to be able to legally have a gun, and having a gun in public is generally frowned upon. A (relatively) small percentage of the population owns a gun. A large percentage of the population owns a car, and having one in public is quite ordinary. So a huge amount of people are privileged, and yet a small amount of people act upon their Rights? It's just semantics.


You're right. You kind of are arguing semantics. In the gun case, the liscense is a stipulation to a right; however, no matter what, the government could not make a law saying nobody could own guns without ammending the constitution. In the driving case, the government could make a law saying nobody could own a car or drive without a constitutional ammendment. That is the difference between a right and a privledge. It's much easier, legally, to abolish a privledge than it is a right. So, in a sense, rights are seen as "higher" on the pyramid of benefits we gain from accepting government.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:38 am

Sarvis wrote:So your world is so far removed from reality that you've never heard of planes, trains and taxis? What about hot air balloons? Hangliders? Boats?


The smartcar was available on the European market long before it was even legal to drive in the American market. The reasons for this are primarly government control.

The smartcar "polluted" too much - for the size of its engine.

Regulatory controls by a government very much control how we do things, what we can buy.

Sarvis is correct, that a government needs to be able to set standards and create regulation that makes transportation affordable, safe, and beneficial to all.

Kiryan is correct, that often times government extends its powers not necessarily to directly hurt the people, but sometimes makes decisions that protect OTHER interests - which means we don't get the best decisions more often than not.

There is a little device I like to call a conflict of interest. When you give an entity, let's just say... the Federal government, too many interests, eventually they will come to conflict.

No one entity can guarantee the best or prime outcome.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests