Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Spiral of Violence - Page 170







Post#4226 at 04-26-2013 02:55 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-26-2013, 02:55 PM #4226
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
Rationalization in favor- Idiots have to told to put their seatbelts on and idiots drive cars and crash them the most and account for the bulk of injuries and dealths which requires a seatbelt law to keep our costs down. We pay for the police and fire departments that respond and the inceases in insurance costs as well. I don't need a seatbelt law myself and I think it's stupid. Unfortunately, we don't have idiot only streets and highways. So, we're stuck sharing roads with them and a seatbelt law. OK, I rationalized its need and acceptance which means I'm no kind of libertarian yet or ever.
I will agree with the insurance companies on the need to reduce pointless risks to humanity as a whole. Basically, if you are smoking in bed, it had better be sexual.


To me, statism as you describe, sounds pretty far fetched for America when you take into account it's people and it's history. As far as foriegn influence over our government, that's a not so far fetched possibility. Especially, if you pay attention to what progressives say and talk about here. If you see the new Red Dawn and pay attention to what's being broadcasted over the speakers, it's a whole lot of progressive and very similiar to what you see being broadcasted here. BTW, I'm a believer in non aggression but in the real world we have to begin protecting ourself from abroad and the circle of our protection has to be broad. America is uniquely different than the rest of the world which is why we will always have enemies and groups that hate us abroad.
The original was awful, so in view of the tendency of remakes to be worse than the originals, that movie doesn't seem like something to watch except by accident. Commies as a rule offer a parody of liberalism (OK, Commies believe in universal adult suffrage and gender equity, the brotherhood of humanity so long as it is the working class, secularism, and muted nationalism, and greater equality of economic results) -- but fascists offer a parody of conservatism with 'merit-based' or 'merit-guided' electorates, overt nationalism, anti-rationalism, and severe inequality as reward for success and punishment for failure.

A billboard in Havana all but parodied Abraham Lincoln -- "The Socialist Revolution... of the common man, by the common man, and for the common man" in his "...government of the People, by the People, and for the People..." in the Gettysburg Address.

Let's get this right. Evil almost never presents itself as such. Adolf Hitler could have never built his movement an gained electoral and financial support had he promised the death, tyranny, and destruction that he achieved and that after the Second World War Germany would lose huge chunks of territory and that Germans would feel shame about being Germans. Hitler even toned down the Jew-hating rhetoric while achieving power, even asking the vile Julius Streicher to soften his Jew-baiting rhetoric and imagery.

Do you think that the usual child molester tells his intended victims that they will feel unimaginable shame and pain? Not in the least. He offers attention and perhaps fun that the parents can't or don't offer. Effective parents can teach a child that "too good to be true" is neither good nor true, and that with strangers there is no free lunch.

Political demagogues who offer 'too good to be true' promises arise in places in which the political system has been dysfunctional for a long time..

Most people accept murder/killing as something that happens with people or during times of war when it's needed for defense. But, the act of murder itself is not widely tolerated or condoned.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly delineates a distinction between murder and the usual hazards of warfare. Military service is a dangerous occupation, but soldiers are expected to avoid committing overt crimes. Ask William Calley. In civil life one has distinctions between murder, manslaughter, voluntary homicide (all unjustifiable), and justifiable homicide (typically self-defense and unavoidable accidents).

Libertarianism isn't realistic for a large nation with cities and towns with an infrastructure that supports. As far as America, I believe the bulk of it isn't going to change alot and remain relatively stable and secure. As far as amount of fallout, well I'll just say, I wouldn't want to be in our major cities during the fallout.
A good point, and that heavily defines one of the political divides in America. In general, rural America is far more conservative on economics (except on farm subsidies) than is urban America. Government services are more expensive in the big cities in part because such people as teachers have to be paid above-average salaries if they are to not find some other activity more lucrative (a really-good teacher has most of the hallmarks of a good salesperson) and cops have to be paid well enough so that they don't end up on the payroll of racketeers. If two-lane blacktop roads are adequate in most of the Dakotas (I-29, I-90, and I-94 being long-distance highways then journeys of similar length in northeastern New Jersey or Southern California usually involve large traffic volumes for which ten-lane expressways often prove inadequate. Adding four lanes to an existing six-lane expressway in a developed area involves expensive acquisition of real estate and relocation of utilities. Building a hundred miles of new freeway through the Dakotas is probably less expensive than building five miles of new expressway in Greater Cleveland.

Bigger cities imply higher-cost public services, higher costs of living, and higher incomes by necessity. Barack Obama won the popular vote in the 2008 election by winning a combination of 63 counties and independent cities and the District of Columbia while barely losing elsewhere. All such places had population densities in excess of 1824 per square mile, ranging up to 57,173 (Manhattan). It's not that such places with high population densities are giant metropolises. Two such places are Fredericksburg and Charlottesville, Virginia.

You can see much of the demographic connection between population statistics and the 2008 Presidential vote here. It is still available:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/re.../explorer.html

President Obama did well in most big cities and badly in most rural areas. Suburbia is becoming increasingly urban and decreasingly rural -- and President Obama got that fact right.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#4227 at 04-26-2013 03:13 PM by Bad Dog [at joined Dec 2012 #posts 2,156]
---
04-26-2013, 03:13 PM #4227
Join Date
Dec 2012
Posts
2,156

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Yield 1-5 KT. They need thier freeeeedom! They're responsible gu*coughhack* chemichal plant owners!







Post#4228 at 04-26-2013 03:15 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
04-26-2013, 03:15 PM #4228
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

This comment is from a well respected journalist:

Small Government: Texas Fertilizer Plant that blew up not inspected for years

Posted on 04/19/2013 by Juan Cole

The Texas fertilizer plant that suffered a massive explosion had not been subject to an OSHA inspection for many years. The current American obsession with deregulation and ending inspections has claimed yet more victims, as The Nation shows. And Texas has also cut funding for first responders like firemen.

Democracy Now! reports :
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#4229 at 04-26-2013 03:42 PM by Seattleblue [at joined Aug 2009 #posts 562]
---
04-26-2013, 03:42 PM #4229
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
562

The reason that seatbelt laws are a good test is because it reveals so much about the people who seek to rationalize the use of force against others.

People reveal themselves as willing to use the murderous power of the state to impose "their" will on other human beings over something so completely trivial, unimportant, frivolous, and absolutely none of their business. In this process of rationalization it is revealed just how unintentionally immoral these individuals are. This is how the spiral of violence begins.







Post#4230 at 04-26-2013 04:16 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
04-26-2013, 04:16 PM #4230
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Seattleblue View Post
The reason that seatbelt laws are a good test is because it reveals so much about the people who seek to rationalize the use of force against others.

People reveal themselves as willing to use the murderous power of the state to impose "their" will on other human beings over something so completely trivial, unimportant, frivolous, and absolutely none of their business. In this process of rationalization it is revealed just how unintentionally immoral these individuals are. This is how the spiral of violence begins.
I hate to say this, but the seatbelt test aslo shows us how me-centric the person is. Believing that any imposition on you is harm of some sort is ludicrous.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#4231 at 04-26-2013 08:59 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
04-26-2013, 08:59 PM #4231
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Seattleblue View Post
The reason that seatbelt laws are a good test is because it reveals so much about the people who seek to rationalize the use of force against others.

People reveal themselves as willing to use the murderous power of the state to impose "their" will on other human beings over something so completely trivial, unimportant, frivolous, and absolutely none of their business. In this process of rationalization it is revealed just how unintentionally immoral these individuals are. This is how the spiral of violence begins.
My cousin's son was speeding on a lake road. He swerved off the road and was thrown from the car because he was not wearing a seat belt. His neck was broken and he died at the age of 16. Tell his broken hearted parents about just how violent it is for wanting people to wear seat belts.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#4232 at 04-26-2013 10:44 PM by Classic-X'er [at joined Sep 2012 #posts 1,789]
---
04-26-2013, 10:44 PM #4232
Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
1,789

Quote Originally Posted by Seattleblue View Post
The reason that seatbelt laws are a good test is because it reveals so much about the people who seek to rationalize the use of force against others.

People reveal themselves as willing to use the murderous power of the state to impose "their" will on other human beings over something so completely trivial, unimportant, frivolous, and absolutely none of their business. In this process of rationalization it is revealed just how unintentionally immoral these individuals are. This is how the spiral of violence begins.
It's just a law. There isn't a gun pointed at your head.







Post#4233 at 04-26-2013 11:04 PM by Classic-X'er [at joined Sep 2012 #posts 1,789]
---
04-26-2013, 11:04 PM #4233
Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
1,789

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
While there are exceptions to every rule, seat belts do save lives. When there's an automobile accident, even a minor hit from behind at a traffic light, there can be much less injury with wearing a seat belt. ANd not all accidents are caused from someone else's mistake. Many a driver has run off the road or taken a turn too fast, then found themselves in a ditch or worse. Being thrown from a car has resulted in numerous fatalities that could have been prevented with the use of a simple restraint.

Then there's the whole issue of restraints for babies and children. I'd much rather have my child in a buckled down car seat than being projected through a windshield during an accident.
Most accidents are caused by peoples own mistakes like not paying attention or driving to fast on a lake road.







Post#4234 at 04-26-2013 11:33 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
04-26-2013, 11:33 PM #4234
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Sounds like a good example of why seat belt laws don't work.
Neither do any other traffic laws really, but that doesn't stop people from their religious belief in them. Fortunately there are always a few folks willing to experiment with those terrifying lawless systems.







Post#4235 at 04-26-2013 11:54 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-26-2013, 11:54 PM #4235
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Sounds like a good example of why seat belt laws don't work.
No, it sounds like Deb's cousin's brain didn't quite work.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4236 at 04-27-2013 06:54 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-27-2013, 06:54 AM #4236
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
If it is corruption, then business leaders involved in it need to go to prison. The swiftest and most reliable cure for political corruption or incompetence that may have led to this disaster (if such is so) is for people to vote out the crooks and incompetents.

I suspect (but can't prove) that failure to investigate the fertilizer plant may have resulted from politicians pressuring OHSA to go easy on the company. Not to make any accusations, the Governor is Rick Perry, one of the dimmer lights among state governors in the US. West, Texas is in the 7th Congressional District of Texas; its current Representative in Congress is Bill Flores, a Republican whose stances are well within the Party (Republican and Tea) line. He is a former executive of an exploration company for oil and gas. I'm not saying that he has done so, but politicians can put the squeeze on regulatory agencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Flores

He replaced Conservadem Chet Edwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chet_Edwards

The dream of the Economic Right is that America will be a nation under government of the economic elites with the promise that such will spur economic growth so strong that it trivializes the consequences of economic inequality and unacknowledged political and economic corruption. Such was tried in Italy in the late 1920s and it was completely consolidated in power in 1938 when its once-democratic Chamber of Deputies voted itself out of existence. By 1943 the Italian people greeted the Americans and British as liberators.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#4237 at 04-27-2013 06:56 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-27-2013, 06:56 AM #4237
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Sounds like a good example of why seat belt laws don't work.
People still get busted for drunk driving, speeding, failure to yield the right-of-way... any political system except fascism can work if people are angels.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#4238 at 04-27-2013 10:18 AM by princeofcats67 [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 1,995]
---
04-27-2013, 10:18 AM #4238
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
1,995

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I thought your concern was that I labeled you a "libertarian."
"Concerned"? Eric. Focus for a couple seconds for me, please:
I. Am. Not. Tied. To. How. I. Am. Perceived. By. You.
IOW, Prince is not "concerned" with how Prince is "perceived"(mistakenly, or not) by Eric.
So, I really have no control over whether or not you believe one of your "shoes" fits for
your perception of me, and I really wouldn't want that type of control even if it were at all
even possible.
IOW, IMO/IME, people see and believe what people want to see and believe.

I will say that, IME, the times I've fit "shoes" on other people(not to mention myself!),
I've often, (if not always!), been "rewarded" with a "free lunch"!(TANSTAAFL!).

Quote Originally Posted by Eric
You are the Prince of "Cats."
That's a name I call "My-Self".

Quote Originally Posted by Eric
"Cats" are considered "Cool." <snip cool-smiley>
They're considered "cool" by you(and me).
But, there's plenty of people that despise "cats".
(but, IMO, those "haters" are usually just "vermin"!)

Quote Originally Posted by Eric
I assume that's why you chose the name, besides also that you like cats.
But whatever, it's cool, man.
Well, you assumed(!) incorrectly(as most assumptions end up being, IME/IMO).
But, whatever, it's cool man(ie: it's "cool for cats").
(giggle!)

Quote Originally Posted by Eric
I'm sure. I'll have to remember, and own up to that!
And one of my favorite songs!
Whatever. As far as I'm concerned, just be "Your-Self".
BTW, that's a pretty cool record and concept, IMO.
I believe it's something that we have "in-common".
Love, Reign O'er Me!

Prince

PS:
Quote Originally Posted by Eric
Well, at least you know now that it refers to YOU! <snip ultra-smiley> (and why)
Heh. That's what you "think", but do you know what it "means"!(heh-heh!)
Last edited by princeofcats67; 04-27-2013 at 10:38 AM. Reason: As if...!(giggle!)
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."







Post#4239 at 04-27-2013 11:19 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
04-27-2013, 11:19 AM #4239
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Yeah ... perhaps more significant than the rationalization about morality is the religious belief that making something illegal eliminates the behavior.
As I have indicated before, there are exceptions to every rule. Just because someone thinks they are invincible to accidents, doesn't mean that all laws about road safety are wrong. I personally have no religious belief about making things illegal will make all people apply common sense.

IMHO, some rules/laws, not all, make sense. Oversight is important in so many areas, like food and traffic laws, for instance. From what I have read from some of your posts, you are an advocate for animals. Would you not like some sort of laws protecting them to some extent? I see on the news about abuses with puppy mills. If it weren't for a law against abuse of these animals, there would be nothing to protect them from human greed.

As for my cousin'son being killed when thrown from the car, he was a young and inexperienced driver like thousands of new drivers on our roads. While he may have thought he was invincible, there are many who choose to use the belts whose lives have been saved.

It appears to me, that we are encouraged by health professionals to take care of our bodies by eating as healthy as possible, getting check ups, not smoking, wearing sun screen, not abusing alcohol or other drugs. It would also appear to me that wearing a seat belt would also make sense in protecting myself from undue injury.

I am not indicating that all laws have to be followed, but some, for the sake of common safety, do. Yet even those who chose to follow safety rules, can have accidents. Nothing in life is guaranteed. Even gun proponents would feel less safe if there weren't some safety measures taken by other gun owners.
Last edited by Deb C; 04-27-2013 at 11:23 AM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#4240 at 04-27-2013 11:57 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
04-27-2013, 11:57 AM #4240
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

From what I have read from some of your posts, you are an advocate for animals. Would you not like some sort of laws protecting them to some extent? I see on the news about abuses with puppy mills. If it weren't for a law against abuse of these animals, there would be nothing to protect them from human greed.
I think you are missing the point. The point is not about what sorts of things you would like to see done, it is the ethical basis of whether a third party should be enabled to enforce your prejudices on other people. This does not mean that nothing can be done, only that the ways and means used must be founded on a firm ethical foundation.

As for my cousin'son being killed when thrown from the car, he was a young and inexperienced driver like thousands of new drivers on our roads. While he may have thought he was invincible, there are many who choose to use the belts whose lives have been saved.
The operative word there was choose.

It appears to me, that we are encouraged by health professionals to take care of our bodies by eating as healthy as possible, getting check ups, not smoking, wearing sun screen, not abusing alcohol or other drugs. It would also appear to me that wearing a seat belt would also make sense in protecting myself from undue injury.
Does this mean you support laws mandating regular check-ups, wearing sunscreen, and banning the use of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol? Or at least rationing their use? You could do it with "unhealthy" foods, too. When I was stationed in Germany, we had ration cards for cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, sugar, and a few other products. You could only buy so much, and you had to get your card stamped each time you did. Would you like something like that imposed on the civilian population here? I bet it could get obesity right down. There'd be a black market, but hey, that's what law enforcement is for, right?

And before you give me a response asking if I feel there should be no laws whatsoever, consider that all of our civil code is superimposed on top of a legal framework that tightly defines rights, duties, and legal standing without recourse to an ethical system that presupposes privileging some people's opinions over others.







Post#4241 at 04-27-2013 12:56 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
04-27-2013, 12:56 PM #4241
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Tax day + the Sandy Hook parents in the VIP seating near the blast = Probably a right-wing gun-nut.
-You would have giggled with glee if they had been, wouldn't you?

Has it ever occured to you to add up all the knee-jerk comments you've posted on 4TF which turned out to be completely, humiliatingly, WRONG?

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...No doubt some people and pundits will use them as an excuse for more war mongering against Muslims. That would just be perpetuating the spiral of violence.
-Before you can defeat an enemy, you have to recognize who they actually are, and you figure that out by finding out what they stand for. They were Jihadis. You can help by not pandering to the sensibilities of Jihadis.

If they'd been tea partiers, any chance you'd be railing against those who would be attacking conservatives and libertarians? Or would you be one of the railers?

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...I admit it is hard to fathom how the Tsarnaevs can be called terrorists but Adam Lanza is not...
-To paraphrase the philosopher: "War is the continuation of policy by other means."

Lanza apparently didn't have a political agenda. The Tsarnaevs had a political agenda. It was Jihad.

Now you know.

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Even a superficial reading the Militia Acts of 1792, the ones most closely linked to the bill of rights, shows that the organizing doctrine of the militias was defined as irregualr military forces subject to the authority of the President (1st Act) and consisting of all the men between 18 and 45, with specific requirements they were to meet in arming themselves (2nd Act).

That doesnít sound like a draft pool. It sounds like a standby force...
-Again, some historical context. Since colonial times, common (or "beat") militia was not normally used to create full units. They were simply a draft pool to fill out volunteer militia units or some sort of active unit. This was the normal way the militia was used during King George's War and the French & Indian War. "Beat " militia units did occasionally get called out en mass during AWI e.g., the Saratoga campaign or the Carolina's, but even then, the more common use for the militia was as a draft list. Those whose name came up either had to show up or provide a substitute. The Civil War draft simply took this old use of the militia and federalized it.

Even when called up by a sheriff to "aid the civil power", it was obviously on a draft pool basis.

I recommend the early chapters of Millet and Maslowski's US military history standard, Common Defense. You can find it in just about any library. For a broader perspective, look back to how militia was used in England.

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
...No government anywhere at any time empowers anyone or any group to overthrow it...
-Ahem. Try again:

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. 1777 ....

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. 1790
...that's two which didn't just consider it, but enshrined them in their state constitutions.

Again, consider the historical context. They had practice at it, remember?

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
...As an expert in the field, itís a bit disingenuous to assume that Wills article can be dismissed because of a few negative comments...
-It can be dismissed because his claims are based on ahistorical crap, "expert" not withstanding.







Post#4242 at 04-27-2013 01:36 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
04-27-2013, 01:36 PM #4242
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post

Does this mean you support laws mandating regular check-ups, wearing sunscreen, and banning the use of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol? Or at least rationing their use?
You could do it with "unhealthy" foods, too. When I was stationed in Germany, we had ration cards for cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, sugar, and a few other products. You could only buy so much, and you had to get your card stamped each time you did. Would you like something like that imposed on the civilian population here? I bet it could get obesity right down. There'd be a black market, but hey, that's what law enforcement is for, right?.
No, but I do see the importance of mandating the doctors and researchers who recommend these guidelines to be properly educated and licensed. Or should that law be done away with? Recommendations aren't always some ploy to get control of our bodies. Take smoking for instance. I praise the age restrictions to access to cigarettes and alcohol. Does it completely stop kids from partaking in these substances, probably not. But it does deter, to some extent, the availability to kids and profitability of powerful tobacco corporations.

I also like the idea that because of research, many really bad trans-fats have been taken out of our food. Should we just abolish all oversight and laws?

IMHO, I think we need to strike a balance in many of our laws. But to get government totally out of our society is cutting off one's nose in spite of the face. There are oppressive laws and there are laws for the safety of society. I guess it's up to us as individuals to choose which ones we will abide by or break. If you want to smoke or abuse alcohol, it's up to a personal choice. Only problem, is that we who don't end up paying for the abusers choice through higher insurance premiums. It's kind of like the shoplifter or those who scam credit card use. They don't think that their behavior affects others but it sure does. We as a society pay for those abuses. The business' pass along their lose to the consumer.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#4243 at 04-27-2013 01:39 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
04-27-2013, 01:39 PM #4243
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

You completely avoided the bulk of what I wrote.







Post#4244 at 04-27-2013 01:39 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
04-27-2013, 01:39 PM #4244
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
You've missed the point.
I wasn't making a comment about whether they are right/wrong. I was talking about whether or not they are effective.
Laws against animal abuse aren't effective either, because obviously the abuses continue in violation of the laws which are already in place. That's why we need (that's right, WE NEED ) the undercover videos and the power of consumer choice.
Just because we still see abuses, doesn't mean that the laws are totally ineffective. It just means that there will always be people who break the social contract of fairness and compassion. Always.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#4245 at 04-27-2013 02:23 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
04-27-2013, 02:23 PM #4245
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
One has to be familiar with the tactics and methods of mobilization of the time to come up with a reasonable understanding of the 2nd Amendment. The English Civil War and American Revolution were reasonably recent memory. Militia units were not a match for regulars, but the militia had a real place on the battlefield. The King had a habit of trying to weaken the enemy by disarming the general population. The English Parliamentary faction and the American revolutionaries did not approve.

Given the military realities of the time, a well regulated militia was considered necessary to the security of a free state. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed.

This is not to say that the current current military situation is the same, that changes in technology ought not result in changes to law. It's just that I'd prefer to see the Constitution modified by legal means rather than through legislation written by the Supreme Court.

I'd note that during the Civil War, with much of the fighting taking place in the south, the Union Army came to dislike the sort of tactics the Minutemen used at Lexington and Concord. Civilians taking up arms at night and doing pinprick damage was not decisive, but forced the regulars to move troops from the front lines to the supply lines. While post revolutionary America romanticized the citizen soldier, Union veterans of the Civil War did not, thus Federal support for maintaining the militia dried up.

We have gotten used to Teddy Roosevelt's version of a reserve force. He was all in favor of foreign adventures, so he created the National Guard as part of the regular army. The militia can only be used to enforce the law, repel invasions and suppress insurrections. It cannot be used outside the nation's borders. Thus, TR had to create a new sort of reserve force. The National Guard is not the militia.

Too many people will leap into the gun debate without learning the history or the law.
-As I said. Context.

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
That appears to be our country's way of dealing with violence. It is part of the problem, not the solution.
-Actually, peace usually reigns when the incorrigible bad guys are dead and the corrigible bad guys give up, based on the demise of the incorrigibles.

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
...He doesn't say that, for the most part, 50 innocent people are murdered for every one suspected terrorist...
-I guarantee that stat' is 100% B.S.
Deb, the Taliban is not a reliable source.
These guys are sort of to your taste, but:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...drone-strikes/
In evidence to Ben Emmerson QC, UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism, the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that CIA drones have killed at least 2,200 people in the country including at least 400 civilians. This is close to the Bureauís low range estimate of 411. The figures were disclosed to Emerson as he made a three-day visit to the country. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which compiled the figures, said a further 200 of the total dead were likely to be civilians too...

...so, trying a little math, that would be (maybe) 600 civilians to (at least) 1,600 Taliban. That's still over 2:1 enemy to civilian, if you believe the Pakisatni government's probably inflated figures. But for argument sake, let's. Room for improvement? Yes. But try to be accurate. The 1,600 dead terrorists are the reason that the Taliban are trying so hard to get suckers like you to end drone strikes. You can bet it's not their concern for civilians.

Oh. Regarding the rest of the article, the same Pakistani government recently admitted that they agreed with the drone strikes all along\:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/...sharraf-drones

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
"The facts are that he is a U.S. citizen accused of domestic terror, hunted down by the FBI and state and local police, facing both state and federal charges. He is not a foreign national, nor a soldier for another country, and he committed those crimes within our borders. He is entitled, regardless of how heinous those crimes were, to Constitutional protections and a fair trial."......... Philip Bond...
-What sort of trial should we have given Confederate soldiers?

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
...The whole "enemy combatant" thing was just the first step onto the slipperyslope of tearing up the whole bill of rights.
-No. It covers the territory of combatants who are not legitimate soldiers. We used to call them spies, saboteurs, and guerillas. But they did get a court martial before they were shot or hung. Nowadays, we send them to a country club in Cuba.


Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
You [Deb C] completely avoided the bulk of what I wrote.
-New here?







Post#4246 at 04-27-2013 02:44 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
04-27-2013, 02:44 PM #4246
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Come on, guy, let's be honest, the CIA considers every military age male killed in a drone strike to be a military combatant.And most of the Confederate soldiers received no penalty, if they promised not to do it again. You might want to try a different example.







Post#4247 at 04-27-2013 04:20 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
04-27-2013, 04:20 PM #4247
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
Come on, guy, let's be honest...
-Gladly.
Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
...the CIA [and other US intelligence or military group?]considers every military age male killed in a drone strike to be a military combatant...
-We don't consider every MAM to be a combatant. We actually go to ridiculous lengths to avoid civilian casualties, or even damaging property (I'm aware of a 40+ group of Taliban who got off because they were in a cemetery ghff ). Even if they did, the stat's I gave to Deb were from a group which is distinctly not CIA (or other intell' or military group). Rather, they seem likely to grab on to reports which would exaggerate civilian losses.

You can see the efficacy of drone strikes when they have to admit that another one of their video-whore commanders got killed, which is a incentive to hate drone strikes. If the strikes were just hitting civilians and leaving them free and clear, they wouldn't make anything of it (it would be keeping them safe, right?). They think that jinning up phony claims is a good way to get the drones off their backs. Our enemies aren't stupid, and this has a long pedigree. The Germans tried this in World War II, with, to be fair, actual justification in many cases.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
...most of the Confederate soldiers received no penalty, if they promised not to do it again. You might want to try a different example.
-The example is perfect, actually. Rebel soldiers were usually held for the duration of the war, unless exchanged. Fortunately for them, it only took them about four years to lose. The exception is if they were being tried as spies or guerillas. If found guilty, they were usually hung. If found not guilty, they were usually held as soldiers until the war ended, or exchanged.







Post#4248 at 04-28-2013 12:11 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-28-2013, 12:11 PM #4248
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
You've missed the point.
I wasn't making a comment about whether they are right/wrong. I was talking about whether or not they are effective.
Laws against animal abuse aren't effective either, because obviously the abuses continue in violation of the laws which are already in place. That's why we need (that's right, WE NEED ) the undercover videos and the power of consumer choice.
Laws are effective. People tend to obey the law, and laws or regulations often mean that problems are reduced.

Laws need to be obeyed, unless they are unjust; and those who disobey them are willing to take the consequences of their civil disobedience.

Laws are part of the fabric of a civilized society. If we want fewer laws, the answer is (generally speaking) not to repeal them and then hope civilized behavior will result. It is better for people to learn the civilized behavior first, and then fewer laws will be needed as a result.

It is not a simple either/or situation, as "fascists/statists" on the one hand or "anarchists/libertarians" on the other would believe. Some laws are unnecessary or oppressive and should be repealed, while others are necessary and deal effectively with problems of bad behavior.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4249 at 04-28-2013 12:14 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-28-2013, 12:14 PM #4249
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I didn't say that the laws are "totally ineffective." That's a strawman.
The question is whether the beneficial "effect" is worth the restriction of rights by an organized government which has a monopoly on the use of violence (love that one!)
In this gun-toting society where gun ownership is encouraged and worshiped, the government scarcely has a "monopoly" on the use of violence!

In the case of seat belts, it could not be clearer that the "beneficial effect" is worth the minimal "restriction." Other posters here covered it well.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4250 at 04-28-2013 02:05 PM by princeofcats67 [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 1,995]
---
04-28-2013, 02:05 PM #4250
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
1,995

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
(that's right, WE NEED )
Rani, I love it when you talk "dirty"!
(Oww! My left frontal-lobe!).


Prince

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
The question is whether the beneficial "effect" is worth the restriction of rights by an organized government which has a monopoly on the use of violence (love that one!)
Oh, Sweet Logic!
(TB!!!NTDAR!).
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
-----------------------------------------