 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Vel
I figured that that is what you would say. You are consistent in your viewpoint that an individual is responsible for their own safety and therefore the state has no business mandating those things.
In the same vein, if you stayed, I assume the state would have no obligation to come get you if you later called on your cell phone seeking rescue... Would it be ok for them to say that you need to seek a remedy from private resources??
Lastly what of the children ??? If we grant a competent adult the right to put themselves into clear danger, how far does that right extend to their offspring?
Excellent questions, Master Flubber!
And you're right...I believe absolutely that the individual can and should have final say in what he/she does to his/her own body, or the risks that one is willing to assume. Those things should almost never be under the jurisdiction of the state (military service being the obvious exception, but that is a very specific and special case).
If I choose to remain after the state has told me to go, I should (and would) expect the state to wash its hands of me in that particular instance. No rescue. No assistance. I stayed when they deemed it unsafe. That's the limits of their responsibility. They told me they thought it was unsafe, and recommended that I not hang around. If I choose to ignore that advice, then that's my call, but by the same token, they then choose to ignore my cries for help later, if they come.
Fair enough.
As to children.
If the state is raising my kids, providing me all necessary money to put them through school, feed them, clothe them, etc....if they are taking the responsibility for my (hypothetical, at this point) children, then they should be able to mandate decisions FOR my children.
If those responsibilities remain with me, then so do decisions about their safety and well being. If I can be trusted to keep my kids fed and clothed, then I can be trusted to keep them safe.
Perhaps not something that everyone here will agree with me on, but entirely consistent with my other stated views.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Excellent questions, Master Flubber!
-=Vel=- |
I do try
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
And you're right...I believe absolutely that the individual can and should have final say in what he/she does to his/her own body, or the risks that one is willing to assume. Those things should almost never be under the jurisdiction of the state (military service being the obvious exception, but that is a very specific and special case).
If I choose to remain after the state has told me to go, I should (and would) expect the state to wash its hands of me in that particular instance. No rescue. No assistance. I stayed when they deemed it unsafe. That's the limits of their responsibility. They told me they thought it was unsafe, and recommended that I not hang around. If I choose to ignore that advice, then that's my call, but by the same token, they then choose to ignore my cries for help later, if they come.
-=Vel=- |
I admire your consistency
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
As to children.
If the state is raising my kids, providing me all necessary money to put them through school, feed them, clothe them, etc....if they are taking the responsibility for my (hypothetical, at this point) children, then they should be able to mandate decisions FOR my children.
If those responsibilities remain with me, then so do decisions about their safety and well being. If I can be trusted to keep my kids fed and clothed, then I can be trusted to keep them safe.
Perhaps not something that everyone here will agree with me on, but entirely consistent with my other stated views.
-=Vel=- |
This one is tougher because we have laws against child endangerment. It is an exercise in drawing somewhat arbitrary lines though. Even some kids that are fed and clothed may be taken by the state if for example they are left home alone for hours at a time. and I'm sure a crazed social worker could make the case that smoking near a child or feeding them only fast food or having them engage in cliff diving are all examples of endangerment.
Not leaving an "unsafe" situation as deemed by the authorities?? Tough call. There are lots of parents out there who are of borderline intellect and I don't imagine anyone would want to argue that my right to care for my child usurps my childs need for safety. The problem though is the one you outline. If a person is competent to make the thousands of decisions daily that being a parent involves, why aren't they competent to decide where it is safest to stay in a storm? How does the state get to decide to usurp your parental role.
I suspect this rarely comes up as most parents would evacuate on first warning on a voluntary basis but it is an interesting abstract discussion
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:37
|
|
When we started smoking (1969) they were just starting to release how dangerous it was. I'm not going to say I didn't know. It was a bit obvious even then. 
But I made that choice.
After that, it's much less of choice due to the additive nature.
I've tried to quit a few times but I guess I don't want to quit enought because i've failed every time. I have a lot of respect for people that can.
SInce then.
They banned it on the job. I could handle that. Relegated to loading docks and specially designed rooms.
Then they banned it there too. I could handle that, as I would go out into the cold and smoke.
Then they raised the taxs on them by 10 fold. And the money was used in the general fund, not a towards my health care specifically. I could handle that, it was still my choice.
Then they banned it at outdoor sporting functions. They made us go inside to smoke. Doh. There is no proof that second hand smoke outside seriously increases anybodies risk. But I could handle that.
Then they banned it in all governement buildings. I could handle that.
Then they created smoking areas in resturants, and I could handle that. I've always been a considerate smoker.
Then they banned it on mass transportation, I could handle that.
Now they've banned in at some outdoor public beaches and parks. I could handle that.
Now some companies aren't letting people smoke outdoors on their grounds. I could handle that. I choose not to work for that company.
Then some companies prohibited smoking and fired employees that were smoking just at home.
I could handle that, I choose not to work for that company.
Now there's non smoking areas every where. But I can handle that.
But a bar is going to far because it's not must my rights, but it the owner of the bar.
They're even trying to ban smoking at cigar shops that sell cigars. Non smokers never even go in there.
And you wonder why we feel like this one activity is being singled out, despite the growing of being subsidized, and the sale of it heavily taxed.
If I'm at work drunk, they can't fire me at first. It's against the law. They have to offer treatment for the addiction.
Buit if I light up a cigarette, I can be fired on the spot.
Wait till they find another vice. The precedent is set.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Rah, forgot to reply to your comment from earlier. I would agree with that assessment (the mental competency thing) provided that it was used on relatively rare occassions. I would begin to doubt its legitimacy if it were used wholesale on large groups of people, or if it exceeded just a few percentage points of the total population. Applicable in specific cases where incompetency had been previously established, but not, I wouldn't think, as a means test.
Flubber, agreed, this is the very spot at which the battle lines would be drawn (the day to day decision making vs. the state's demanding final say).
If I had been in New Orleans with my wife and (hypothetical) children, and a storm of that magnitude had been approaching, I would not have waited until the "official" word came down to leave. We would have left of our own accord, as a family.
If there were some compelling reason that I needed to stay, I still would have evacuated my family to higher ground, and then stayed on.
That seems the best call, under the circumstances. I can envision very few circumstances that would prompt me to willingly leave my family in harm's way.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
And just because an establishment doesn't close, doesn't mean it's making the same amount of money. |
There's a social cost to it, namely increased medical expenses for staff, and adverse effects on non-smoking patrons.
I agree with you that we should do something about fossil fuels, and indeed there is a lot of research going on in various areas. Although USians are still addicted to cheap gas. So this rocketing oil price may do some good in the long run, just like the oil crisis in the 70's.
But I digress. Just last Saturday I went to a local pub with some friends. We were there for two hours, and out of the twenty or so customers only one was smoking.
This is what is so annoying about this whole thing - one person is sufficient to ruin the experience of twenty others. Yet no local pubs and bars dare to become non-smoking because the owners afraid that they will lose business to the smoking ones if they do so. Same with eateries, with the exception of large chains (they have completely banned smoking from their places) and large outlets (must provide a non-smoking area by law, but the smoking area is invariably bigger than the non-smoking area, even though less than 15% of the population are smokers), all smaller places are smoking. That means if I want to eat and there are no non-smoking restaurants in the area, I am forced to breath in environmental smoke. That's why I am in favour of a total ban, that's the only time when we non-smokers can eat in peace.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
1) Yes....vehicles used in transport and for other business purposes, on average, pollute more than your car does. Also true that there are technologies in the pipeline to remedy this. Also true that there are a lot more cars "like yours" on the road than the heavy hitters. More cars producing less pollution each = more aggregate pollution. Surely a smart boy like you can figure that out, yes? |
Irrelevant to the argument, which is "vehicles cause more pollution than smoking, why not ban them". Under this line of thinking, all vehicles that pollute would have to be banned. Arguing about aggregate pollution form different classes of vehicles is utterly irrelevant to that red herring of an arguement. Stop wasting space.
quote:
2) Economy wouldn't need to take as big a hit as you and others are claiming. There are always alternatives (and in my proposal, mass transit and businesses got to keep autos...I was focusing on the elimination of the personal auto only). Conclusion = auto sales would not completely vanish in this country. Also, there are emerging markets FOR autos that our existing players could position themselves to take advantage of. Also, our existing auto makers and spinoff industries could retool to produce one or more of the alternatives. Combined effect (especially given that the size of the emerging markets dwarf the size of the existing market), auto makers would take a hit, but it need not be fatal to the economy if handled properly. Of course, you'll give me an eyeroll and disagree, but at least you're predictable. |
I know, I predictably come up with better arguments than yours. I do like that predictability. 
You are arguing about how a ban would be implemented, inserting all sorts of assumptions that mean nothing to the point, ie. why ban smoking if you won't ban cars, which pollute more. That was Mings strawman. You have added nothing of worth to help his strawman, except for your assumptions on the eocnomics of retooling the American economy, which in themselves are highly dubious, but again, pointless.
quote:
3) Proponents of the seatbelt law will tell you its cost is zero. In fact, I already used their very arguments a page or two ago. Truth is, we've spent more than a hundred million bucks on advertising, and IF we mean to do more than enforce the law casually (ie, more than bust someone for not buckling up only when we pull them for something else), then we'll need more cops. I'll go slow...more cops = more salary, more salary = more Money, =! "0 cost." If you still believe the law to have zero cost, please mail me a check for 140-odd million dollars. I am sure you won't miss it. I'll PM you with my address. |
And you would then have to balance this with the lower costs paid by the health care industryand by the insurance industry given lower fatality rates form car accidents, plus the intalngible of less human beings dying.
If you care to claim that 140 Million have been spent in a decade or so, then compare that to the savings and the intangibles.
quote:
Oh, and just so you know...I DID see the silly comparison with murder laws, but decided not to even bother to comment. The comparison is rediculous, for reasons you *should be* fully aware of. Good try tho!
-=Vel=-
(off to work!) |
Those reasons are? But why waste even more space with your answer. We are better off with it not being given.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-08-2005 02:37
|