History of Freedom & Its Future
-
prehistoric
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34
freedom and responsibility
Hi Folks,
I've been lurking around this thread instead of participating. At first, I was waiting for posts to be moved here, so the debate would be connected with things that provoked it. Now, the debate has taken on a life of its own.
The topic title mentions history, but few people have had anything to say about the history of freedom. Nor is there much discussion about the future, beyond the general "going to Hell in a hand basket" comments.
It appears people on this thread take freedom as a static condition. This is not true of any kind I am aware of, not even anarchy. The level of understanding of how we got what we have is pitiful. Mostly, we don't even know what we do have. If freedom is not adaptive, it cannot endure into an uncertain future. In this respect, past and future are alike.
A second thing disturbs me. There is a general misunderstanding of how to use freedom without taking it from others. In the thread which provoked this, "markofkane" agreed with a comment I made about a prejudice against the term "politically correct", "because it infringes on free speech". Free speech is a matter of law; in the countries I believe most of us live in "politically correct" is not. I am prejudiced because of experience outside this cozy world.
The attitude of using freedom to the limit of the law at every opportunity and holding someone else responsible for the consequences is all around us. In a Supreme Court precedent you may never have heard, free speech was ruled as not allowing you to "yell 'fire' in a crowed theater". Today, there are all too many examples of people doing something very similar, then suing the management over the result. By eschewing responsibility we have guaranteed more problems will be resolved by government, including the clogged judical system.
The seat belt example shows one way this works. Even people who can take insane risks for themselves are responsible for the risks they impose on minors. There were many years without seat belts required in cars, and few had them. When results were in it became clear large numbers of lives could be saved, and larger numbers of serious injuries avoided. As a result, all new automobiles were required to have them. Even older cars were later required to have them retrofitted. This placed the decision for using them squarely in the hands of people who operated or rode in automobiles, without requiring undue initiative on their part to purchase and install them.
The accident figures remained bad. In cars where adults did not use seat belts, children old enough to make decisions didn't either. With yearly casualties equal to a medium-sized war, lawsuits all over the place, and government picking up the cost for under-insured victims, the stage was set for paternalistic legislation.
This isn't the first example by a long shot. Things like safety glass, turn signals, brake lights and rear-view mirrors came into common use through similar sequences of events. I still have friends who need to be reminded to use turn signals because they started driving before these were common. The complaint that others "can see me coming" doesn't carry much weight with me.
In recent news, one family in the U.S. was incensed they could be removed from a flight after it became clear they were either not willing or not able to control their children on an airplane. If you have ever been on a flight where loose items bounced off the ceiling, you know what the consequences could have been. (I had a memorable trip in which returning vacationers lost control of a bag of oranges.)
This kind of thing seems so obvious I wouldn't have expected it to be an issue among intelligent and well-informed people. There are more serious issues facing us.
When you hear about legislation allowing government actions dangerous to freedom, do you ever stop to wonder how government was operating without this? In the U.S. the answer is frequently the use of emergency powers. In some cases, these have stayed in continuous use since the second World War. Continued operation in this mode could be even more dangerous than you think.
I've been lurking around this thread instead of participating. At first, I was waiting for posts to be moved here, so the debate would be connected with things that provoked it. Now, the debate has taken on a life of its own.
The topic title mentions history, but few people have had anything to say about the history of freedom. Nor is there much discussion about the future, beyond the general "going to Hell in a hand basket" comments.
It appears people on this thread take freedom as a static condition. This is not true of any kind I am aware of, not even anarchy. The level of understanding of how we got what we have is pitiful. Mostly, we don't even know what we do have. If freedom is not adaptive, it cannot endure into an uncertain future. In this respect, past and future are alike.
A second thing disturbs me. There is a general misunderstanding of how to use freedom without taking it from others. In the thread which provoked this, "markofkane" agreed with a comment I made about a prejudice against the term "politically correct", "because it infringes on free speech". Free speech is a matter of law; in the countries I believe most of us live in "politically correct" is not. I am prejudiced because of experience outside this cozy world.
The attitude of using freedom to the limit of the law at every opportunity and holding someone else responsible for the consequences is all around us. In a Supreme Court precedent you may never have heard, free speech was ruled as not allowing you to "yell 'fire' in a crowed theater". Today, there are all too many examples of people doing something very similar, then suing the management over the result. By eschewing responsibility we have guaranteed more problems will be resolved by government, including the clogged judical system.
The seat belt example shows one way this works. Even people who can take insane risks for themselves are responsible for the risks they impose on minors. There were many years without seat belts required in cars, and few had them. When results were in it became clear large numbers of lives could be saved, and larger numbers of serious injuries avoided. As a result, all new automobiles were required to have them. Even older cars were later required to have them retrofitted. This placed the decision for using them squarely in the hands of people who operated or rode in automobiles, without requiring undue initiative on their part to purchase and install them.
The accident figures remained bad. In cars where adults did not use seat belts, children old enough to make decisions didn't either. With yearly casualties equal to a medium-sized war, lawsuits all over the place, and government picking up the cost for under-insured victims, the stage was set for paternalistic legislation.
This isn't the first example by a long shot. Things like safety glass, turn signals, brake lights and rear-view mirrors came into common use through similar sequences of events. I still have friends who need to be reminded to use turn signals because they started driving before these were common. The complaint that others "can see me coming" doesn't carry much weight with me.
In recent news, one family in the U.S. was incensed they could be removed from a flight after it became clear they were either not willing or not able to control their children on an airplane. If you have ever been on a flight where loose items bounced off the ceiling, you know what the consequences could have been. (I had a memorable trip in which returning vacationers lost control of a bag of oranges.)
This kind of thing seems so obvious I wouldn't have expected it to be an issue among intelligent and well-informed people. There are more serious issues facing us.
When you hear about legislation allowing government actions dangerous to freedom, do you ever stop to wonder how government was operating without this? In the U.S. the answer is frequently the use of emergency powers. In some cases, these have stayed in continuous use since the second World War. Continued operation in this mode could be even more dangerous than you think.
-
markofkane
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 09:02
- Location: Kane, IL USA
I never said that wearing a seatbelt was a bad idea. And minors, and others that are not qualified to make decisions (like the mentally retarded, or those unable to make decisions on their own) should be made to wear them.
But as an adult, who drives alone in my car 99% of the time, I believe that decision should be left up to me. I want to be able to choose whether I want to wear a seatbelt or not, without the fear of getting a ticket ("Click it or Ticket" sounds like extortion, or something like that, to me)
I do not eat, use a cell phone, or do anything that distracts me from driving. However, there is no law against that yet, in my state. I believe doing anything that distracts me not only puts myself in danger, but others.
Some use the silly argument "If you don't wear a seatbelt, you can fly through the windshield and hurt/kill somebody else" That is absurd. although it's possible, but not that probable.
Although the seatbelt law seems sensible to the docile citizens, it is just another chip in the block of freedom. Each time the government tells us what to do, or what not to do, those are more chips, and eventually, the block will be completely gone, and so will our freedoms.
("It's for our own good, therefore, it's ok" )
Ben Franklin was a wise man:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
But as an adult, who drives alone in my car 99% of the time, I believe that decision should be left up to me. I want to be able to choose whether I want to wear a seatbelt or not, without the fear of getting a ticket ("Click it or Ticket" sounds like extortion, or something like that, to me)
I do not eat, use a cell phone, or do anything that distracts me from driving. However, there is no law against that yet, in my state. I believe doing anything that distracts me not only puts myself in danger, but others.
Some use the silly argument "If you don't wear a seatbelt, you can fly through the windshield and hurt/kill somebody else" That is absurd. although it's possible, but not that probable.
Although the seatbelt law seems sensible to the docile citizens, it is just another chip in the block of freedom. Each time the government tells us what to do, or what not to do, those are more chips, and eventually, the block will be completely gone, and so will our freedoms.
("It's for our own good, therefore, it's ok" )
Ben Franklin was a wise man:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-
prehistoric
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34
getting somewhere
@markofkane,
Now, we're getting somewhere.
The tendency to put something in law, simply because it sounds like a good idea, is a continuing danger. The law is the wrong instrument for any number of things. There is also a problem of selective enforcement, which can amount to arbitrary power in the hands of those who make enforcement decisions. Finally, there is the danger of overload, which shows up all over the legal system.
I've just finished Charles Stross's "Halting State", set in a near future Scotland. He does an excellent job of extrapolating many current trends people on this forum will recognize. What I think he underestimates is the effect of information overload on the minions of the law. If every policeman is recording several streams of real time information every day, where will you get the people and time to watch the results? Won't selection allow you to build a plausible case against anyone?
BTW: Did anyone else notice the special role played by someone named "Barry"?
Now, we're getting somewhere.
The tendency to put something in law, simply because it sounds like a good idea, is a continuing danger. The law is the wrong instrument for any number of things. There is also a problem of selective enforcement, which can amount to arbitrary power in the hands of those who make enforcement decisions. Finally, there is the danger of overload, which shows up all over the legal system.
I've just finished Charles Stross's "Halting State", set in a near future Scotland. He does an excellent job of extrapolating many current trends people on this forum will recognize. What I think he underestimates is the effect of information overload on the minions of the law. If every policeman is recording several streams of real time information every day, where will you get the people and time to watch the results? Won't selection allow you to build a plausible case against anyone?
BTW: Did anyone else notice the special role played by someone named "Barry"?
I think wearing of seatbelts is a bad example of something the state should not legislate on.
The cost to society of clearing up the mess of a road traffic accident is significant. If a seatbelt helps to reduce this cost then surely as responsible members of society we should wear them. Sometimes a seatbelt is going to make the difference between walking away and needing an ambulance. Ambulances are a finite resource and I would rather they are kept for people who couldn't help themselves.
As far as I am aware no country forces people to wear seatbelts unless they are in a vehicle on a public highway. You have the freedom not to use a vehicle on a public highway.
The cost to society of clearing up the mess of a road traffic accident is significant. If a seatbelt helps to reduce this cost then surely as responsible members of society we should wear them. Sometimes a seatbelt is going to make the difference between walking away and needing an ambulance. Ambulances are a finite resource and I would rather they are kept for people who couldn't help themselves.
As far as I am aware no country forces people to wear seatbelts unless they are in a vehicle on a public highway. You have the freedom not to use a vehicle on a public highway.
Will
contribute: [url=http://www.puppylinux.org]community website[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/6c3nm6]screenshots[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/6j2gbz]puplets[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/57gykn]wiki[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/5dgr83]rss[/url]
contribute: [url=http://www.puppylinux.org]community website[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/6c3nm6]screenshots[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/6j2gbz]puplets[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/57gykn]wiki[/url], [url=http://tinyurl.com/5dgr83]rss[/url]
-
oktinkerbell
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue 01 Apr 2008, 13:48
- Location: chickasha, oklahoma
prehistoric :"The tendency to put something in law, simply because it sounds like a good idea, is a continuing danger. The law is the wrong instrument for any number of things. There is also a problem of selective enforcement, which can amount to arbitrary power in the hands of those who make enforcement decisions. Finally, there is the danger of overload, which shows up all over the legal system.
Law courses that were required (being as I was a pre-law major) lead me to read endless pages of mind numbing laws, that did not necessarily bring a passion or emotion to me but one rather large document did,,,The Patriot Act , which was our presidents and his buddies idea of PROTECTING America,,(is night mare scary).. I only want to point out this because if you read only experts you have an idea but if you read it in depth then you know that the constitution that our for fathers wrote,,well, it has nothing on this one.. we have no legal freedom the government has the right to do whatever they want and all they have to do is say that it is for the safety of the public,,or it was a terrorist in some way,, there are numerous ways that they can make it legal for them to get away with doing what they want.
It was pointed out in this thread that the government thrives on the people who just go with the flow and not ask questions,,well, I am so guilty of that,,sometimes you can't start to grasp all of the changes being made before our eyes.
Seat belt laws were mentioned in here also and they have a great purpose in life to give you a 50/50 chance of surviving an accident. I have been in three accidents, two roll overs and one head on,,seat belt was worn in head on,,I received major abdominal damage from it,,but I SURVIVED,,so I know that with out a doubt I never leave without my kids strapped in the seat, as a parent it is my responsibility to protect my children at all cost. Some my argue that strapping them in is safer. But I believe it is so I do.
And that is the problem with laws,everybody has their belief of how it should be,,they were all raised in different environments, with different back grounds, so there for they will have a different view of how it should be.To predict the future well, that can't happen we are allowed to raise our children as we see fit,,to an extent,,If this was a dictatorship and the government was mass raising our kids to believe one thing then we may have a chance at a civil world, but we won't because somebody always has to think out side of the box and evolve into some kind of different person.
Law courses that were required (being as I was a pre-law major) lead me to read endless pages of mind numbing laws, that did not necessarily bring a passion or emotion to me but one rather large document did,,,The Patriot Act , which was our presidents and his buddies idea of PROTECTING America,,(is night mare scary).. I only want to point out this because if you read only experts you have an idea but if you read it in depth then you know that the constitution that our for fathers wrote,,well, it has nothing on this one.. we have no legal freedom the government has the right to do whatever they want and all they have to do is say that it is for the safety of the public,,or it was a terrorist in some way,, there are numerous ways that they can make it legal for them to get away with doing what they want.
It was pointed out in this thread that the government thrives on the people who just go with the flow and not ask questions,,well, I am so guilty of that,,sometimes you can't start to grasp all of the changes being made before our eyes.
Seat belt laws were mentioned in here also and they have a great purpose in life to give you a 50/50 chance of surviving an accident. I have been in three accidents, two roll overs and one head on,,seat belt was worn in head on,,I received major abdominal damage from it,,but I SURVIVED,,so I know that with out a doubt I never leave without my kids strapped in the seat, as a parent it is my responsibility to protect my children at all cost. Some my argue that strapping them in is safer. But I believe it is so I do.
And that is the problem with laws,everybody has their belief of how it should be,,they were all raised in different environments, with different back grounds, so there for they will have a different view of how it should be.To predict the future well, that can't happen we are allowed to raise our children as we see fit,,to an extent,,If this was a dictatorship and the government was mass raising our kids to believe one thing then we may have a chance at a civil world, but we won't because somebody always has to think out side of the box and evolve into some kind of different person.
Freedom?????????
Hello,Ah yes, freedom, that mythic creation, that unintangible sense of being in control of
ones own destiny..What is freedom?? Does something being against the law mean you are not "free" to do it? Should we be free do stupid things?
Freedom isnt something you are given, its something you take. If you have to ask, its not freedom, is it? By the same token, freedoms arent taken away, they are GIVEN UP..
Wise man indeed...They who can give up
While we chat about the freedom to not wear seatbelts, we have lost the right to so many larger issues in my country, which no-one seems to see, or care about..
Our government, thanks to the aforementioned "patriot" act, has the "right" to watch, investigate, wiretap, search without warrent, seize without cause, detain indefinately without charges or representation, any "free" American they want to, under the ruse of "terrorism". It can and does happen. Yes, it started small, like seatbelt inforcement
and gun control laws. ( The Murrah building fiasco helped them a lot with that one), but it has gone way beyond that now. Technically, the income tax is illegal, as is the "Federal" reserve, yet we blindly follow the "rules" we allow them to impose. (Baa)
This is a subject we have touched upon before on this forum, and one that is very important to me personally. We are sheep. Peroid. They tell us what is good (the "Sheppard") and what is bad (the "Wolves"), and we act accordingly.
Freedom of speech? As long as it is "politically correct" speech.
Our children are being programmed by the "Education System" and the Media to believe what they want us to believe, to behave in a "correct" manner, to see our world through their eyes. People actually think their governments have their best interest in mind. "They wouldnt do it if it wasnt for our own good" " They know whats best for me" Baa-Baa little sheep.
Who do we blame?? Them?? NO!!! They only get away with what we let them. If you are afraid to " stand out from the crowd", you ARE the crowd. If you care what people think more than what YOU think, You arent thinking for yourself any more. Do you need someone to force you to wear a seatbelt that could save your life?? Are we that stupid, that we need a parental gonernment.?? My friends call me a conspiracy nut. They will see.. Go ahead, swipe that finger to buy things and get licences ect... Hell, go ahead and get a chip implanted...
Well put Mr. Franklin.deserve neither liberty nor safety.
(rabble, rabble) Sorry, Ill quit ranting for now....Remember...
Big Brother Loves You.......
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
Well,
Judging from some of the comments in this thread, and in contemplation of why the thread was moved here, one could be forgiven for saying 'freedom is spaghetti soup'
It appears to me that, as prehistoric mentioned, there was a discussion which gave rise to this, which unfortunately has not been edited out yet, and placed here to read, and therefore it's history is missing, and some appear not to have connected with it
Secondly, I observe a mixing up of concepts
The words people use to convey an idea or a notion, may not mean the same to 2 people in the same country, and the puppy forum is quite international, so conceptual models are even further apart, IMHO
I would also suggest that the 'conversational arguments' about seat-belt wearing, and legal/moral rationales for or against, fail to take into account the known fact that people sitting in a vehicle, whether the 'driver', 'aimer', 'passenger' 'pedestrian temporarily sitting', or whatever, may not even be in the same time-zone/mindset as each other, let alone the similar people in vehicles around about them!! Therefore, the reason for there being as many/little number of 'accidents' as there are, is difficult to estimate/explain
~In what context is this freedom we would all like to have, or do not have, other than a model of our world, its irrelevant barriers to our daily lives, as national boundaries, and all manner of labels bandied about as if they actually had some foundation in any binding reality!!
Now, would someone care to say what freedom they don't have, and what historical thing might be the cause, or reason why?
Then perhaps we can look to see if a vision of it's future is possible, or not
One which comes to mind for me is, I do not have the freedom to escape gravity and leave this rock we all inhabit, anyone else manage it?
Aitch
Judging from some of the comments in this thread, and in contemplation of why the thread was moved here, one could be forgiven for saying 'freedom is spaghetti soup'
It appears to me that, as prehistoric mentioned, there was a discussion which gave rise to this, which unfortunately has not been edited out yet, and placed here to read, and therefore it's history is missing, and some appear not to have connected with it
Secondly, I observe a mixing up of concepts
The words people use to convey an idea or a notion, may not mean the same to 2 people in the same country, and the puppy forum is quite international, so conceptual models are even further apart, IMHO
I would also suggest that the 'conversational arguments' about seat-belt wearing, and legal/moral rationales for or against, fail to take into account the known fact that people sitting in a vehicle, whether the 'driver', 'aimer', 'passenger' 'pedestrian temporarily sitting', or whatever, may not even be in the same time-zone/mindset as each other, let alone the similar people in vehicles around about them!! Therefore, the reason for there being as many/little number of 'accidents' as there are, is difficult to estimate/explain
~In what context is this freedom we would all like to have, or do not have, other than a model of our world, its irrelevant barriers to our daily lives, as national boundaries, and all manner of labels bandied about as if they actually had some foundation in any binding reality!!
Now, would someone care to say what freedom they don't have, and what historical thing might be the cause, or reason why?
Then perhaps we can look to see if a vision of it's future is possible, or not
One which comes to mind for me is, I do not have the freedom to escape gravity and leave this rock we all inhabit, anyone else manage it?
Aitch
-
prehistoric
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34
Chickasha uprising?
Apparently, this struck a nerve in Chickasha. If I remember the area correctly, you should have a very clear idea of what happens when a government makes decisions for you and what your fellow Amuricans may do even if it doesn't.
The argument about income tax is one I've heard before. It leads into one point I tried to make. How many knew the U.S. income tax was introduced as an emergency measure during the American Civil War? It was unpopular and quickly disappeared, until WWI brought it back. (Ditto for the draft.) It has stuck around ever since.
Reading the Patriot Act is disturbing. What many regard as innovations there were, however, already in practice, as emergency measures. More and more we have been approaching a kind of institutional gridlock, with rule by decree as the means to get essential things done. This is not a good situation.
I happen to agree with HairyWill and headfound on seatbelts. The cost in lives was easily measurable, the imposition on drivers and passengers relatively small. The human and financial cost of automobile accidents, and the expenses which ended up as government liabilities, undermines arguments about not harming anyone else. I feel I must reiterate one point; there was clear evidence minors did not use seat belts if adults did not. This was not the way it was intended and laws were modified accordingly.
What may have gone missing in the heat of debate is the adaptive nature of this change. Compared to the cost of technological fixes for the problem, wearing seat belts was a cheap solution for an expensive problem. In terms of lost capabilities, I'm not sure what objections are about. The idea of freedom to do damn near anything you want, while sticking someone else with the tab, is all too prevalent.
To really appreciate the meaning of freedom you need to experience its absence. Then you can start to rank the importance of things you might lose.
Freedom of speech and press are on a different level entirely. Freedom of movement and private communication are even more basic. Technological change is weaving a web of constraints which may make all our movements and communications an open book. You don't have to be up to no good to find this threatening. Muggers and rapists would love to have your itinerary. Any of you may also imagine what would happen if carefully selected details of your life were placed in the hands of your worst political opponents. You can be law-abiding and still subject to extortion.
We didn't get into the situation of having freedoms (plural) by some cosmic stroke of lightning, our societies slowly and painfully adapted. The lesson I take from this is the concept of pluralism. It doesn't matter how great some idea is, using it as "one size fits all" is bound to produce appalling results. The feeling that people who oppose your beliefs should not even exist is the downfall of way too many cultures around the world. There are times and places where this has been put into practice. I try to avoid these.
Added: Aitch has taken things in a different direction while I was posting. I'm going to stop and think a while before responding. I recommend this unusual course of action to any willing to experiment.
The argument about income tax is one I've heard before. It leads into one point I tried to make. How many knew the U.S. income tax was introduced as an emergency measure during the American Civil War? It was unpopular and quickly disappeared, until WWI brought it back. (Ditto for the draft.) It has stuck around ever since.
Reading the Patriot Act is disturbing. What many regard as innovations there were, however, already in practice, as emergency measures. More and more we have been approaching a kind of institutional gridlock, with rule by decree as the means to get essential things done. This is not a good situation.
I happen to agree with HairyWill and headfound on seatbelts. The cost in lives was easily measurable, the imposition on drivers and passengers relatively small. The human and financial cost of automobile accidents, and the expenses which ended up as government liabilities, undermines arguments about not harming anyone else. I feel I must reiterate one point; there was clear evidence minors did not use seat belts if adults did not. This was not the way it was intended and laws were modified accordingly.
What may have gone missing in the heat of debate is the adaptive nature of this change. Compared to the cost of technological fixes for the problem, wearing seat belts was a cheap solution for an expensive problem. In terms of lost capabilities, I'm not sure what objections are about. The idea of freedom to do damn near anything you want, while sticking someone else with the tab, is all too prevalent.
To really appreciate the meaning of freedom you need to experience its absence. Then you can start to rank the importance of things you might lose.
Freedom of speech and press are on a different level entirely. Freedom of movement and private communication are even more basic. Technological change is weaving a web of constraints which may make all our movements and communications an open book. You don't have to be up to no good to find this threatening. Muggers and rapists would love to have your itinerary. Any of you may also imagine what would happen if carefully selected details of your life were placed in the hands of your worst political opponents. You can be law-abiding and still subject to extortion.
We didn't get into the situation of having freedoms (plural) by some cosmic stroke of lightning, our societies slowly and painfully adapted. The lesson I take from this is the concept of pluralism. It doesn't matter how great some idea is, using it as "one size fits all" is bound to produce appalling results. The feeling that people who oppose your beliefs should not even exist is the downfall of way too many cultures around the world. There are times and places where this has been put into practice. I try to avoid these.
Added: Aitch has taken things in a different direction while I was posting. I'm going to stop and think a while before responding. I recommend this unusual course of action to any willing to experiment.
-
Bruce B
Muggins,muggins wrote:Another factor is the medical aspect. It's fine to say an individual should be able to do anything, (as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others), but if things go wrong, who is going to pick up the tab for medical bills etc.
I'll try and give you a brief description how it works here.
A man gets shot. For all I know he deserved to get shot and
should bleed to death. He gets medical treatment anyway. The
reason why is because he needs it.
Another man shoots himself in the foot. Nobody admires that kind of
stupidity, but he gets medical treatment because he needs it.
A vice president shoots a lawyer in the face and chest with a
shotgun. Even though he's a lawyer he still gets medical attention.
A climber looses footing breaks two legs. It takes the three fireman
risking their lives to save the guy. After the ordeal he gets his
broken bones set and put in casts.
Someone has become discouraged and wants to commit suicide.
We come to the rescue and save the life he doesn't want anyway.
There's a hurricane, some people fled inland and others didn't. We
still go back and try to rescue the survivors and injured.
I was barefoot. I stepped on something glass, it broke and left
nasty wounds. Should have not stepped on the glass, should have
been wearing shoes. Didn't matter from a medical perspective, they
fixed the actual injuries I sustained.
The bottom line is we treat people if they need it and because they
need it.
Bruce
-
Bruce B
Bruce B,
yes society picks up the tab for the medical treatment resulting from these various accidents, but as the costs of medical treatment seem to be rising incessantly, I think it's economically sensible for any society to inflict the minor inconvenience of seatbelt wearing to forestall those costs.
I also reckon it's a very slippery slope where to somehow link being made to wear seatbelts to some sort of creeping totalitarianism. Do people against wearing seatbelts also refuse to eat bread containing added thiamine? Another commie, nannny-state plot!
And while we're at it, why is it illegal for me to use heroin, crack cocaine etc?
yes society picks up the tab for the medical treatment resulting from these various accidents, but as the costs of medical treatment seem to be rising incessantly, I think it's economically sensible for any society to inflict the minor inconvenience of seatbelt wearing to forestall those costs.
I also reckon it's a very slippery slope where to somehow link being made to wear seatbelts to some sort of creeping totalitarianism. Do people against wearing seatbelts also refuse to eat bread containing added thiamine? Another commie, nannny-state plot!
And while we're at it, why is it illegal for me to use heroin, crack cocaine etc?
my italicsBruceB wrote:1) we don't have seat belts on our school buses
2) we do have school bus accidents
That's all - make of it as you will.
'Kids - Who needs 'em?'
is a phrase often heard, that seems to fit that view
well.......?
another common misconception is the notion, by association, that the blame game is an effective weapon, like stories about people getting shot
it's a question of the commonplace, versus the normal
& how that affects peoples judgement as to where responsibility belongs
Aitch
Freedom, like most things is all about equilibrium. It has to be constantly redefined based on the situation.
My freedom to swing my fist ends somewhere. Does it end at your nose or at the boundary of your bubble of private space? How big a bubble is that? My freedom to have a car with no muffler ends at your ears; or does it end at your poor dog's ears when you find him trying to crawl under the bed because he's terrorized by my car? My freedom to do almost anything meets a boundary where it interferes with the next person's freedom to do what he/she wishes. The interface has to be constantly interpreted and and equilibrium maintained.
An organized way of maintaining equilibrium is necessary. It's easiest and best to do it person to person if possible, but we often are forced to do it through ordinances, zoning, and some kind of legal framework.
Freedom is easiest to maintain when you have elbow room. If you want to be as free as possible, live in the boondocks. If you live near other people, be prepared to live "with" them.
My freedom to swing my fist ends somewhere. Does it end at your nose or at the boundary of your bubble of private space? How big a bubble is that? My freedom to have a car with no muffler ends at your ears; or does it end at your poor dog's ears when you find him trying to crawl under the bed because he's terrorized by my car? My freedom to do almost anything meets a boundary where it interferes with the next person's freedom to do what he/she wishes. The interface has to be constantly interpreted and and equilibrium maintained.
An organized way of maintaining equilibrium is necessary. It's easiest and best to do it person to person if possible, but we often are forced to do it through ordinances, zoning, and some kind of legal framework.
Freedom is easiest to maintain when you have elbow room. If you want to be as free as possible, live in the boondocks. If you live near other people, be prepared to live "with" them.
I once heard it said "Warning labels are for stupid people, so, if we didnt have warning labels, we would have less stupid people."
The implications to this conversation are staggering....
They wouldnt put a "Do Not Eat" warning on poison unless some
idiot already ate some .
If they didnt put a warning on it, would you know that an oven " may
be hot"??? You`d learn quick enough.
If we continue to pamper the ignorant, soon they will be all thats left.
The freedom to eliminate your own stupidity, now thats freedom......
Go ahead Billy-Bob, stick a fork in that toaster....
You dont need no seat belt....
Improve the gene pool...
Darwinism at its best...
@ Edit: To clarify, the Government wouldnt regulate us to death if
we didnt continually prove we are, as a whole, to damn stupid to do
it ourselves. Not that I am for Government control and protection,
just the opposite. My point being if you DONT protect society from
its own stupidity, society as a whole, gets smarter. Sounds cruel,
but it works great in the animal kingdom.
Not to mention, Government, by definition, has a personal agenda.
Ours just has an EVIL one.
Two good reasons to tell "Big Brother" to back off...
Last edited by puppyluvr on Mon 14 Jul 2008, 04:19, edited 3 times in total.
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
-
Bruce B
Muggins,
It doesn't make a bit of difference at all, nothing to discuss except
the facts.
If you come over here and get yourself in a life threatening fix, we
are going to help you. Maybe you weren't watching where you were
going and fell in a rabbit hole. We'll go in and get you out.
If your life is in danger due to circumstance or medical condition,
we will help you or treat you. Your wealth or lack of it is not a factor.
Your citizenship is not a factor. We don't even care if you like or
approve of us.
Do you not understand this? Money is for bean counters. You're a
fellow human being and that's all you need be in life and death
situations.
Bruce
It doesn't make a bit of difference at all, nothing to discuss except
the facts.
If you come over here and get yourself in a life threatening fix, we
are going to help you. Maybe you weren't watching where you were
going and fell in a rabbit hole. We'll go in and get you out.
If your life is in danger due to circumstance or medical condition,
we will help you or treat you. Your wealth or lack of it is not a factor.
Your citizenship is not a factor. We don't even care if you like or
approve of us.
Do you not understand this? Money is for bean counters. You're a
fellow human being and that's all you need be in life and death
situations.
Bruce
-
Bruce B
You got it!hillside wrote: Freedom is easiest to maintain when you have elbow room. If you want to be as free as possible, live in the boondocks. If you live near other people, be prepared to live "with" them.
Would anyone care if I played music all night? Would anyone care if I
pissed on a tree?
What's the sound of a man shooting a crow in the boondocks to the
people in the city?
Why all the rules and regulations ?
I suggest most everything human beings do is for the $$$$$$$$$.
Can you imagine all the jobs lost if these laws weren't on the books.Lawyers would have a tough time getting clients,law enforcement wouldn't have much to do,people who maintain and work at prisons would be out of work.If our so called "war on drugs" was eliminated,Also the drug dealers would suffer because the black market price of drugs would fall through the floor and they would find it very difficult make a living.Personally I would like to see drugs decriminalized and if a person is stupid enough to go down that road,I guess they want to die,so I say ,let them In fact I would have a government contract and give addicts all the drugs they wanted,free !In six months time ,there wouldn't be any addicts but here again .stealing ,robbing ,murder rates would suffer and judges would lack for cases and politicians would have all this free time to consider less important things like energy policies etc etc. Yes !Just follow the money ! and the secret will be known.
) cheers
Can you imagine all the jobs lost if these laws weren't on the books.Lawyers would have a tough time getting clients,law enforcement wouldn't have much to do,people who maintain and work at prisons would be out of work.If our so called "war on drugs" was eliminated,Also the drug dealers would suffer because the black market price of drugs would fall through the floor and they would find it very difficult make a living.Personally I would like to see drugs decriminalized and if a person is stupid enough to go down that road,I guess they want to die,so I say ,let them In fact I would have a government contract and give addicts all the drugs they wanted,free !In six months time ,there wouldn't be any addicts but here again .stealing ,robbing ,murder rates would suffer and judges would lack for cases and politicians would have all this free time to consider less important things like energy policies etc etc. Yes !Just follow the money ! and the secret will be known.
) cheers-
Bruce B
Considerations and Questions
- Motor Vehicles Are Not Safe
I wish to make the argument that motor vehicles are not safe. I
won't at this time support my argument unless someone wants to
argue differently.
????
Social Responsibility
I liked making good money. Some jobs pay more because they are
hazardous by nature. I've done hazardous work for the higher pay I
could get.
Truck driving while not considered hazardous per se, some kinds
of jobs and loads are seriously hazardous. I took those jobs.
Later I worked in dozens of prisons.
Both of these occupations require using yer 'noggin. You don't
have the luxury of getting yourself killed three or four times a year.
Would I have been more socially responsible had I worked as a
bookkeeper, in an air-conditioned office, a three block walk from my
house?
For The Bean Counters
One man drinks, smokes, gambles, carouses with ladies of
ill-repute, he kills himself in a motorcycle wreck at thirty five. They
say if he'd worn his helmet he'd survived the wreck.
Another man does everything right. He lives to be 95. The last
decade of his life he's in and out of the hospital on several
occasions, using his government medical insurance. Also worth
mentioning is, he has taken social security payments for the thirty
years of his life.
Who was the greater burden on society?
More important is, do we require the motorcycle rider to try and live
to be 100 years old? If so, why?
The freedom to eliminate your own stupidity, now thats freedom......
Uh oh. That should read, "we would have fewer stupid people." Should such a low level mistake initiate the elimination process?I once heard it said "Warning labels are for stupid people, so, if we didnt have warning labels, we would have less stupid people.