Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Maelstrom of Violence
(09-06-2017, 03:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996.  So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.

How hard would it be for Australia to be turned into a fascist state? How many battles would the fascists have to fight and win? How many fascists would be needed? 

Since there is no evidence of this happening, or even evidence that it could, your comment come across as more than a little paranoid ... in keeping with your need to go about armed to the teeth.

Classic-X Wrote:I know one thing, there isn't enough fascists, socialists and communists in America to defeat the 60 plus million Americans who voted for Trump.

Boo!
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: ... Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle.  Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.

OK, then tell me about the UK.  I'm sure they have less freedom, since that seems to be you premise for needing guns in this modern age.

Warren Dew Wrote:Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.

Based on what great observation, or are you just parroting the same lines from the same sources?

FWIW, slander laws are stricter in Canada, but political speech is just as free as the US ... perhaps moreso in some ways.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
The UK has even less free speech than Canada.
Reply
(09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

How about calling men in dresses he and women wearing trousers and attempting to pretend to be guys she.  In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns".  Of course their government also buys into the notion that there is more than three different genders:  Male, Female, freak of nature.

True, up tp  a point.  This is only an issue if actions are taken.  I tend to think this is more motivational than actionable, but its still new.  We'll have to see.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
We have lots of genders now. Male, female, gay male, lesbian female, bisexual male, bisexual female, transgender male turned female, transgender female turned male, and questioning. Post-sixties is a different world; get used to it.

https://www.working-minds.com/WMessay55.htm
(one correction to the article; I think the lesbian in a male body is meant for the 11 O'clock position)

https://www.amazon.com/Circle-Sex-Gavin-...B0006BOHDO
"The Circle of Sex" by Gavin Arthur
ByJuan Duniteon October 3, 2012
Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase
This is an excellent book about human sexuality, which presents the varying degrees of sexual preference, not on a line as Kinsey did, but as 12 segments within a circle.

The concept is unique but similar to an astrological chart (Gavin Arthur was indeed by profession an astrologer). Gavin, the grandson of President Arthur, mingled with many well-known people in his lifetime, including Alan Watts, who wrote the introduction to the book. And he includes many of his life experiences, as well as antectodes about other famous people, to verbally illustrate the 12 various sexual types.

The book is an interesting read, and the reader can't help but identify where they, their lovers,friends, and family belong on the circle. It is important to keep in mind that one is not bound to one type in particular; there is a cusp between types where one can and often does belong.

I'm a little biased, because I'm writing Gavin's biography, but I could honestly say to Gavin that I, a 12:30 Darby/Pioneer hybrid, salute you, a 3 o'clock Dorian type and scholar!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(09-09-2017, 03:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

How about calling men in dresses he and women wearing trousers and attempting to pretend to be guys she.  In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns".  Of course their government also buys into the notion that there is more than three different genders:  Male, Female, freak of nature.

True, up tp  a point.  This is only an issue if actions are taken.  I tend to think this is more motivational than actionable, but its still new.  We'll have to see.

As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(09-10-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?

And that, David, is the point. Before World War II, Polish-American and Italian-American kids were almost invariably poor. But they paid attention to the schoolteacher (often a non-nonsense nun complete with a ruler). They learned the basics so that when it was time to use a slide rule, they were well prepared. When it came time to write a coherent report they were prepared. Then came World War II, which put everything to the test. The bright kids who knew their trigonometry knew how to point artillery weapons for maximal effect. Flight crews could figure at what point to release the bomb. Smart kids got the responsibility to wage a smart war, and the Army and Navy didn'pt care about ethnicity -- just that the Zero got sent to Davy Jones' locker or that the oil field at Ploiesti that was supplying the Wehrmacht was in flames. After the war, those who did the smart jobs in the military got the smart, well-paying jobs in private industry. Never mind that their parents did 'dumb' jobs like filling gas tanks or cleaning. 

As Abraham Lincoln said, it is better to keep silent and let people think one stupid than to open one;s mouth and leave no doubt. Most of us have some means of sizing up the intelligence of others quickly. Job title? No. This class society wastes millions of people, although that may be impractical as we have a real crisis. Melanin? Sure -- if one is a racist. Surname? Many people with the surname "Lee" don't look anything like the general. No. Let someone talk.  People who speak unexceptionable English, with good grammar, solid sentence structure, and fit use of words are more likely than not on the intelligent side. Then listen for the content of the talk. Informed talk with some subtlety suggests intelligence. But even with a non-native speaker of English, listen for the topics of discussion.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(09-08-2017, 06:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-08-2017, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

So why the difference?  Do the blacks not know that they'd be safer smoking inside their houses?  Or do they refuse to do it because they don't want to give in to the system or something?

Is this related to why blacks seem more willing to double park and do other minor parking violations that interfere with traffic but are rarely ticketed, or is that a different issue?

1. A kid in an overcrowded tenement is likely to be told 'don't smoke that horrible thing here'. With a middle-class family, the kid might smoke it while he is the only one home or in his private room... behind a closed door and a closed curtain.

2. Double-parking is largely an urban phenomenon related to population density. Population density is highest in those parts of urban areas  with lots of poor people. I never see it in a rural area.
Not even when someone is, say, delivering a pizza?
Reply
(09-10-2017, 03:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-10-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?

And that, David, is the point. Before World War II, Polish-American and Italian-American kids were almost invariably poor. But they paid attention to the schoolteacher (often a non-nonsense nun complete with a ruler). They learned the basics so that when it was time to use a slide rule, they were well prepared. When it came time to write a coherent report they were prepared. Then came World War II, which put everything to the test. The bright kids who knew their trigonometry knew how to point artillery weapons for maximal effect. Flight crews could figure at what point to release the bomb. Smart kids got the responsibility to wage a smart war, and the Army and Navy didn'pt care about ethnicity -- just that the Zero got sent to Davy Jones' locker or that the oil field at Ploiesti that was supplying the Wehrmacht was in flames. After the war, those who did the smart jobs in the military got the smart, well-paying jobs in private industry. Never mind that their parents did 'dumb' jobs like filling gas tanks or cleaning. 

As Abraham Lincoln said, it is better to keep silent and let people think one stupid than to open one;s mouth and leave no doubt. Most of us have some means of sizing up the intelligence of others quickly. Job title? No. This class society wastes millions of people, although that may be impractical as we have a real crisis. Melanin? Sure -- if one is a racist. Surname? Many people with the surname "Lee" don't look anything like the general. No. Let someone talk.  People who speak unexceptionable English, with good grammar, solid sentence structure, and fit use of words are more likely than not on the intelligent side. Then listen for the content of the talk. Informed talk with some subtlety suggests intelligence. But even with a non-native speaker of English, listen for the topics of discussion.

filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.
Reply
(09-11-2017, 11:09 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:
(09-08-2017, 06:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-08-2017, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

So why the difference?  Do the blacks not know that they'd be safer smoking inside their houses?  Or do they refuse to do it because they don't want to give in to the system or something?

Is this related to why blacks seem more willing to double park and do other minor parking violations that interfere with traffic but are rarely ticketed, or is that a different issue?

1. A kid in an overcrowded tenement is likely to be told 'don't smoke that horrible thing here'. With a middle-class family, the kid might smoke it while he is the only one home or in his private room... behind a closed door and a closed curtain.

2. Double-parking is largely an urban phenomenon related to population density. Population density is highest in those parts of urban areas  with lots of poor people. I never see it in a rural area.
Not even when someone is, say, delivering a pizza?

Not likely to be caught. Stop, deliver, and leave. It takes less than a minute.

But in really-rural areas, delivery of a pizza is unlikely. Someone drives to town and back for a pizza, or you have made one in the oven.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

"Check your tires? Check your filter? Check your fluids?"

Self service turned the business of selling gasoline from a trip to the repair shop where one might be sold a wiper blade before one really needed one into a trip to a convenience store in which you might buy some beer that you didn't need and some cancerweed products bad for you... or some overpriced groceries. Now you get the wiper blades, fluids, and air filter at some place that uses oil changes to attract you.

...The jobs most likely to be lost are unskilled jobs due to various forms of automation.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.
Reply
(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(09-12-2017, 11:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.

A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.
Reply
(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 11:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.

A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

A classic example is the humble gas can.  In Massachusetts, someone has decided that gas should not be spilled all over the place.  There are all sorts of spring mechanisms in the new cans to prevent it.  These are not easy to get used to.  The theory is the government has interest in saving lives and preventing fire.  The practice is that the insurance companies don't have to pay out as much money, and they have lobbyists.  The practical effect is that a bunch of ordinary people who think gas fires will never happen to them are very angry.

Of course, if by default you do not favor government intervention, it seems obvious that gas fires will never happen to you.  If you do like the nanny state, be relieved, big brother is looking out for you.

Rinse.  Repeat.  Variants of the issue are all over the place.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

Quote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.
Reply
(09-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

There are any number of examples of Federal intervention that began in response to some failing in the private sector.  Look at the airlines.  They are pushing more and more people on planes because they can.  Travel is worse than uncomfortable, especially on long flights, and they want to push even more.  It's already life threatening to  some people, but who cares.  Right?  This will lead to a resumption of Federal regulation at some point, because that's the only way to protect the public.  Don't blame the government when that happens.

Warren Dew Wrote:
David Horn Wrote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.

I'm on Medicare and it works really well.  There's even room for private insurance for those who want it.  Part D is bad, but it was the mandate that drug prices could not be negotiated that makes it bad.  I'll be happy to kill that requirement.  So what involvement would you end?  How about the FDA drug approval process.  We can go back to believing what the drug companies say.  Or maybe you wish to kill the requirement that keeps every medical practice from operating an MRI, making them impossibly expensive to use.  Give me an example or two.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Calls by elected officials (other than Trump) for political violence pbrower2a 3 2,214 09-13-2016, 02:52 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)