Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 11:56 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 11:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  Drunk driving laws do reduce the incidence of drunk driving. This is just the first thing that came up Googling it. Of course, to be effective, the laws need to be enforced.

But are you sure it's the law and not awareness of the danger? Now don't get me wrong here. I don't mean to assert that laws don't prevent shit from happening I'm just not convinced that they do.
I will admit that it's possible that I'm projecting.
I don't actually respect the law but I do respect people.
That said I don't think anyone can argue that education isn't the key to a better world.

I don't disagree that education is the key.

The argument, though, is about how to have that happen.
The U.S. currently has compulsory education, required subjects, and prohibitions - all mandated by law and regulation. And there are requirements for vaccinations. There are differences and exceptions. Home schooling and religious schooling can get around some of the laws.

Should we just ditch the laws and let people call whatever they do 'education'?

I think not. And the laws are enforced. And if anyone starts with the 'men with guns' bullshit, you will get an earful because that is the stupidest fucking argument ploy ever.
It just poisons the atmosphere.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 01:31 PM by Chas.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 11:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Regulation for corporations sounds good, but it isn't logical. Corporations are created and maintained by state regulation. This regulation says that corporate people are allowed to take out their money and get away and let the legal fiction of a corporation take all the blame.

No, they don't. The court can pierce the veil and get at the principals.

Quote:Corporation is like lizard's tail, it can fall off in danger and the lizard escapes, even if it just ate someone's family.

No, it isn't. The court can pierce the veil and get at the principals.

Pro tip: Bernie Madoff had a corporation - Bernie Madoff is in jail.

Quote:Why did corporations get this sweet deal from the state? They are the best tax collectors! They offer a salary and subtract the tax from it, before they give you the check. If you had to do it yourself and pay taxes by your own hand, you'd soon get really pissed at the government.

Tax collection? Seriously?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 01:02 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 01:06 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 12:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 11:56 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  But are you sure it's the law and not awareness of the danger? Now don't get me wrong here. I don't mean to assert that laws don't prevent shit from happening I'm just not convinced that they do.
I will admit that it's possible that I'm projecting.
I don't actually respect the law but I do respect people.
That said I don't think anyone can argue that education isn't the key to a better world.

I don't disagree that education is the key.

The argument, though, is about how to have that happen.
The U.S. currently has compulsory education, required subjects, and prohibitions - all mandated by law and regulation. And there are requirements for vaccinations. There are differences and exceptions. Home schooling and religious schooling can get around some of the laws.

Should we just ditch the laws and let people call whatever they do 'education'?

I think not. And the laws are enforced. And if anyone starts with the 'men with guns' bullshit, you will get an earful because that is the stupidest fucking argument ploy ever.
It just poisons the atmosphere.
Ok. I can see you point.
It's just that a lot of times preventative laws seem to cause more problems than they fix. I will also admit that the drunk driving example may not have been a good one. Although as I said I'm not convinced that law prevents it. And as I also said, I do what I want and I don't do what I don't want to(lol).Law never factors into it. I guess I sometimes expect everyone else to think the same which isn't fair, I know.

But I don't get what you mean by the "men with guns" thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 01:04 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 01:08 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Oh. You mean cops right? I don't like 'em. Wink
See I got a problem with authority. It's probably why I left religion at such a young age.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 01:02 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't disagree that education is the key.

The argument, though, is about how to have that happen.
The U.S. currently has compulsory education, required subjects, and prohibitions - all mandated by law and regulation. And there are requirements for vaccinations. There are differences and exceptions. Home schooling and religious schooling can get around some of the laws.

Should we just ditch the laws and let people call whatever they do 'education'?

I think not. And the laws are enforced. And if anyone starts with the 'men with guns' bullshit, you will get an earful because that is the stupidest fucking argument ploy ever.
It just poisons the atmosphere.
Ok. I can see you point.
It's just that a lot of times preventative laws seem to cause more problems than they fix. I will also admit that the drunk driving example may not have been a good one. Although as I said I'm not convinced that law prevents it. And as I also said, I do what I want and I don't do what I don't want to(lol).Law never factors into it. I guess I sometimes expect everyone else to think the same which isn't fair, I know.

But I don't get what you mean by the "men with guns" thing.

Yeah, I never said that any law prevents a behavior - it just makes the behavior less attractive, therefore less prevalent.

Are you sure that your knowledge of a law doesn't ever enter in to your decision making?

As for the 'men with guns' reference, your argument was starting to sound like a libertarian one, and I wanted to try to keep it grounded in reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 12:12 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Wow. That's pretty good - I needed the consice analysis to understand the balance of the coorporation to organize tax collection. I think you meant that the owners of the corporation that get the sweet deal in liability - If I am understanding it correctly.

So, then it would seem that there needs to be some regulation on the liability insurance seperated from profits/sharing/distribution.
The lack of responsibility works as far as money and fines are concerned, which is most cases. Although in case of crimes traceable to a single person corporations also do their best to hide personal responsibility in murky depths of the corporate hierarchy.

However, I wouldn't pile regulation upon regulation on corporations to fix the original regulation that created them. There are already countless thousands of pages of regulations that nobody can possibly keep. Big corporations solve it simply, they hire an army of lawyers or they bribe a politician. Small companies can't compete with that.
So instead of regulation, what about ending the state? Without state, the corporation is just a group of people with money of investors and these people have unlimited liability for everything they do, with all their property, just like you or me. They can still call themselves Apple or Microsoft, but if anything bad happens, it's Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who reach into their pocket. The business will go as usual, only much more carefully.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
So this has gotten a little out of hand here. I'm not advocating for the legalization of drunk driving. I recognize that is a problem and must be stopped. All I am saying is that I don't think outlawing it is the answer. Why not? Because plenty of people are doing it regardless. I will admit that if I'm pulled over its less likely I'll kill anyone (I've never gotten behind the wheel while under the influence by the way) but why are there not equivalent penalties for excessive speed? The thing is I'm not convinced that government has our best interests in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I personally do think that making it illegal is good. People murder a lot too, despite murder being illegal. But its illegality is why we're able to apprehend the person to punish them for what they've done and to prevent them from doing it again anytime soon. Illegalizing drunk driving, like murder, is (I think) a good protective measure for everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that drunk driving is on the same level as outright murder. I just used murder because it was the most obviously illegal and harmful act that I could think of at the moment.

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Some folks are good without god. I guess I'm good without god or law.
And I suppose now that I think about it I guess there are some folks that need the threat of hell (or prison) to be good.
However I question preventative measures because where do we draw the line.
My father, a pretty bad alcoholic, left the bar and got in his car, started it up and passed out. Not once but pretty well everyday of winter. Keep in mind he never drive it home or anywhere else. In the summer he didn't usually start the car. Anyway one day an RCMP officer arrested him for this. He lost his licence because he wanted to stay warm.
I'm not claiming this proves anything. It's just a story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 03:09 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 01:55 PM)Charis Wrote:  I personally do think that making it illegal is good. People murder a lot too, despite murder being illegal. But its illegality is why we're able to apprehend the person to punish them for what they've done and to prevent them from doing it again anytime soon. Illegalizing drunk driving, like murder, is (I think) a good protective measure for everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that drunk driving is on the same level as outright murder. I just used murder because it was the most obviously illegal and harmful act that I could think of at the moment.
The difference perhaps is that every time you murder someone, someone gets hurt?
Anyway as I said I'm not advocating for the legalization of drunk driving. I'm simply not convinced that it is prevented by laws. I happen to think that murder isn't pervented by laws either. But you do have a good point about apprehending law breakers.
I notice you used the word "punish." So as I said earlier it's about vengeance? Educate the person and he is also likely to no reoffend.
I think that we are too caught up in punishing people to see that there is a better answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: