What is it with this 'Liberal' thing?

[kappa]

AKCurly wrote:
you've limped so long, you wouldn't recognize lame if it bit you.


lol Curly. Some great post you have made but this one made me burst out laughing right in the middle of work.. Damn!! you being so funny!! j/k   O ya, I back all that serious stuff your saying as well.  Good points you made even when folks dont hear, but only read your post.

k
AoM

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Hooligan
I agree wholeheartedly.  However, if somebody wants to open a Bar in LA, it should be up to them whether or not it is a non-smoking establishment.  If somebody wants to accept the risk of entering a smoking establishment, that is their right.


Come on Hooligan, surely you can imagine circumstances where an individual would have to enter the bar, even though they don't want to.

Suppose a feller's job is sharpening pencils for Bill Gates and BG wants a beer.  BG enters said bar and insists his pencil sharpener come along.  Does the pencil sharpener say "No, I will not do it!" ?


If you don't like Microsoft or Apple, you don't have to buy their products.  Try not paying for the DEA and see what happens.


Sure.  I don't like second hand smoke and I'm not buying any of that either.


One of the government's proper jobs is deal with those who harm others or their property.  Fraudulent business practices are also a no-no, so I certainly think that thalidomide falls under that.


So do monopolistic business practices.  


Yes, I am rather sure that US war production in which much of the production details were left to private industry was much more efficient that the state run industries in Germany and the USSR for example.  And Alfred Loomis was a product of private enterprise who got involved because of the war, not a career Government bureaucrat.  


Exactly. In times of extreme need, the citizen makes the difference in our society.  Not so in many other countries.


Even though the Atomic bomb was produced in time, it is rather a stretch to say that it was produced efficiently or quickly compared to what may have happened in a market based competitive environment.


Hooligan, with all due respect, that is so inaccurate, it's difficult to even pick a point to illuminate.

The Manhattan project was efficient and yet provided a reasonable amount of protection for the private citizen.  Had Corporation Xyz been responsible for the Manhattan Project, they would have tested it in downtown Redmond.

Normally, market based competitive environments are excellent.  They figure out the quickest way to produce an excellent product for minimum cost.  However, if you grant a competitive advantage (say by overlooking monopoly laws), then the company switches from being to competitive to maximizing its profit.  They start producing crap and because of marketing positioning granted the government (monopolies), real harm is done to the private citizen.

Look at the extraordinary POS that MS is currently selling.  Does it work?  Well, sort of.  What's the cost?  Saturated networks and inordinate amounts of downtime due to viruses.

Why doesn't MS clean its OS up?  In a phrase, because they have no compelling reason to do so.  They are in business to make money (good reason) and they maximize their profits by ignoring quality control.  How can they do this?  Because they have in effect been granted a monopoly.


  I haven’t noticed 20 nuke companies trying to undersell each other, and until we do we won’t know how efficiently and cheaply they can be produced.


Then you aren't paying attention, feller.  A Japanese firm has produced a "fool proof" nuke reactor suitable to provide power for an entire town.  Negotiations are underway to use in Alaska.



I’m sure the Canadians get a laugh out of that.  Under the fed’s most recent attempt to give us national healthcare, what you suggest would be illegal.


Sure, to us, the Canadian medical care system seems wrongheaded.  I guess the majority of Canadians don't agree.   If it doesn't work, they'll change it.  Democracy ...


Try to license your car independently of the state.  I doubt they will approve of your homemade license plates, although they may be impressed enough to offer you a career in that field.


I see.  You want the advantages of a government (highways, postal system, & etc), but you don't want to pay the price.


As you well know, I don’t want anarchy.  And as far as I can tell our founding fathers did a better job than anyone else in devising an effective and efficient government.  I’d be perfectly happy to see the government cut back to what they envisioned.


That's really farsighted, hooli.  Do you really think they were concerned about lunatics flying jets into large buildings?   Wow!  I didn't know that ole Ben Franklin had such powerful visions of the future.

Hooligan, you remind of some guys I know.  They still resist using modern programming languages.  They insist that everything should be written in assembler.  Indeed, when I'm around them, I always agree with them and encourage them to just use machine language.

curly

[lazs2]

curly... I don't think that helmet laws or seat belt laws or smoking in a private building should be allowed to be put up to a vote.   Does that answer your question?    

I would say that a person who refused to go into a building because it had a "this is a smoking building" sign on it would have a very good court case if his employer forced him to enter and instantly ruin his lungs wouldn't you?

I believe that the public has a right to vote on what is done in public buildings but not private... nor does the public have the right to tell someone to wear a helmet or to not climb mountains or skydive or hang glide or anything else that does not harm the public in any direct way.

yep... I've limped for a long time but.... that seems a triffle insensitive for you to bring up...  I will assume that you did it because you know that I am shallow and insensitive and not that you have any particular predjudice against people who are less mobile than yourself tho.

you seem to be saying tho that we are in dangerous times.... which times weren't?  and.... what is so dangerous that we should give up our rights to be protected from it?    I don't know what it is that you want.   certainly people not wearing helmets or seat belts doesn't pose a threat to your or your freedom.
lazs

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by lazs2
curly... I don't think that helmet laws or seat belt laws or smoking in a private building should be allowed to be put up to a vote.  

you seem to be saying tho that we are in dangerous times.... which times weren't?  and.... what is so dangerous that we should give up our rights to be protected from it?    I don't know what it is that you want.   certainly people not wearing helmets or seat belts doesn't pose a threat to your or your freedom.
lazs

The public has the right to ban "strip" and "night" clubs in their neigborhoods.

Private business that are open to the public and serve the general public must obey certain laws... such as not refusing to serve minorities or women.

They also have to obey public health laws... especially if they serve food..... Chinese restaurants can't claim that cockroaches in the fried rice give it that "oriental" authencity.

Smoking is a health issue.... and since cigarrette smoke is air borne... a smoker can't smoke and not affect people next to them.... well.. perhaps they can if they choose not to exhail.

Business do not have the right to promote an environment which is unsafe to the public.

So what does the public do? Ban smoking in public accessable businesses... it's their right to do that, because they are protect the public health.

IIRC, most of these anti-smoking laws can't touch Private clubs which require private membership.... that's how some golf and country clubs manage to circumvent civil rights laws and prevent access by women and minorites... have to be recommended by a current member.

[lazs2]

nexus... I don't believe the public has the right to ban strip clubs if the clubs are not breaking any zoning laws or human rights violations.

same for smoking.   as for health issues.... I would say that a resteraunt is telling people it has clean healthy food as advertised.. if that is not the case then you could not know unless it were inspected..   smoking is nothing like that ..  a sign outside the entrance proclaiming that the the building was or was not a smoking building should be sufficient.  

I don't smoke... can't stand the smell even... don't allow people to smoke in my home or car....  I would probly not patronize a resteraunt that allowed smoking... chances are... most people wouldn't... ithe laws are a complex solution to a nonexistent problem..  just silly do gooderism that is all show and no substance and just one step further down the road to big brotherism.
lazs

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by lazs2
curly... I don't think that helmet laws or seat belt laws or smoking in a private building should be allowed to be put up to a vote.   Does that answer your question?    


Hey, I agree with that.  You said "private building."


I would say that a person who refused to go into a building because it had a "this is a smoking building" sign on it would have a very good court case if his employer forced him to enter and instantly ruin his lungs wouldn't you?


You bet!


I believe that the public has a right to vote on what is done in public buildings but not private... nor does the public have the right to tell someone to wear a helmet or to not climb mountains or skydive or hang glide or anything else that does not harm the public in any direct way.


So long as your activities don't infringe unduly on me, I completely agree.  However, when you undertake activities which cause the authorities to rescue your sorry ***, I believe you are getting in my pocketbook.

When you give some moron the right to put his 6 year child on the back of a motorcycle sans helmet, you are guilty of child endangerment.  Children have difficulty understanding danger.


yep... I've limped for a long time but.... that seems a triffle insensitive for you to bring up...  I will assume that you did it because you know that I am shallow and insensitive and not that you have any particular predjudice against people who are less mobile than yourself tho.


Nope.  I brought it up because of my AH training.  I have learned to shoot all chutes.  When I see Lazs posting on political matters, hell, it's a chute!


you seem to be saying tho that we are in dangerous times.... which times weren't?  and.... what is so dangerous that we should give up our rights to be protected from it?    I don't know what it is that you want.   certainly people not wearing helmets or seat belts doesn't pose a threat to your or your freedom.


I want all children to have to the right to grow up.  Therefore, I want helmets on them.  I could care less about the adults.

Dangerous times ... give up rights.  Whoa, big long complicated list there.  During the civil war, habeas corpus (correct phrase?) was suspended.   Citizens were tossed in jail and were charged with nothing.  They were simply held in jail for several years.

I don't know of similar ww1 or 2 extreme actions by the government, but I'm sure they're there.  

I guess my take on the subject goes like this: It's up to our government to decide when times are dangerous enough to suspend certain basic liberties (see Abe Lincoln.)  And, if we don't agree with the government, well, we toss the rascals out and get a new set.

Better be careful when you toss them tho.

I want all cars to have seat belts.  I don't care whether you wear yours or not.  But, I want the belts there.  I want all children safely restrained while they are passengers in an automobile.  Failure to restrain a child passenger in a car should result in a charge of attempted manslaughter.

So yeah, I don't like the current seat belt laws either.  So what?  The legislation is new (as those things go) and it will either pass the test of time or go the way of prohibition.

curly

[ravells]

No word of a lie...

There was this restaurant in Sydney, Australia where you could eat your food off a naked woman.

It was closed down by....the health department on the grounds that it was unhygenic.



Ravs

[Hooligan]

Come on Hooligan, surely you can imagine circumstances where an individual would have to enter the bar, even though they don't want to.

Without involving coercion I can't.  I can always tell Bill:  "Hey, I'm not going in there."  He can fire me if he wants and hire somebody who will go into the bar.  If he pulls a gun on me and insists (i.e. coercion) then that is and should be illegal.

Sure.  I don't like second hand smoke and I'm not buying any of that either.

If you want to go into hitech's office, that's the price you pay.  It's his office and he smokes.  As long as nobody uses force to get you in there, why should anybody besides hitech tell him if he can smoke in his office.

So do monopolistic business practices.

Like the post office you mean?  The only monopolies are government supported ones.

The Manhattan project was efficient and yet provided a reasonable amount of protection for the private citizen. Had Corporation Xyz been responsible for the Manhattan Project, they would have tested it in downtown Redmond.

Neither you nor I believe this, but you still seem to miss the point that I have already said that warmaking is a legitmate function of government.

Look at the extraordinary POS that MS is currently selling. Does it work? Well, sort of. What's the cost? Saturated networks and inordinate amounts of downtime due to viruses.

Why doesn't MS clean its OS up? In a phrase, because they have no compelling reason to do so. They are in business to make money (good reason) and they maximize their profits by ignoring quality control. How can they do this? Because they have in effect been granted a monopoly

Well I don't think Windows is perfect, but a lot of people buy it so the votes would indicate that it is better than brand-X.  I do not believe your premises:  (its a POS, they don't try to improve it).  If you are right then 5 years from now you won't have to worry about using Windows because somebody will take their business away just like they took Wordperfect's so-called-monoply.   You can get Linux, Unix, DR-DOS or Apple.  All you are really saying is that some unknow company would have done it better if MS wasn't there.  I consider this rather a stretch.  MS DOESN'T HAVE A MONOPLY.  Your alternate choices may be unattractive but YOU STILL CHOOSE.  Your local telephone company may have a monoply.  You can't start string your own phone lines and selling phone service to your neighbors.  The police would come to your door if you tried.  That is a monoply.  Nobody is going to send guys with guns to your house if you start selling a new O/S tomorrow.  If it is good enough and cheap enough (and these would have to be very significant improvements), then you would have no trouble selling it.

I see.  You want the advantages of a government (highways, postal system, & etc), but you don't want to pay the price.

Where did I say that?  Given the choice:  I will take the army, police and highways and pay for them.  The post office should be privatized and the BATF and DOE should go in the dustbin.  I can't think of a compelling reason we should have to license cars.

That's really farsighted, hooli. Do you really think they were concerned about lunatics flying jets into large buildings?  Wow! I didn't know that ole Ben Franklin had such powerful visions of the future.

I think that clearly falls under "national defense", so I guess they did.

Hooligan

[Torque]

You go Curly.

[lazs2]

curly... we agree i suppose..  I believe it allright for the government  to protect children from morons... they can require baby car seats and helmets on mororcycles etc.   no problem   I am talking about adults.   I also have no problem with seat belts being required equipment .... wearing them should be optional.

I also believe that more people were in danger from outside sources during the making of the constitution than now even.     I believe the constitution provides for these things... when all those people were imprisoned during the civil war or... when all those japs were intured during WWII.... did those desperate "extraordinary" measures really make us any safer?

so far as rights go... I can't see just voting them away and then seeing how it works out hoping that we will simply get the chance to vote them back in when we see the error... I don't believe some things should be voted on.  

For instance..  would it be ok if we all voted to send all the black people in this country to africa?   we would reduce crime instantly and save lives.   If it turned out to be a bad law we could just  repeal it later... after all.... the experiment with prohibition didn't really cause much of a problem did it?

lazs

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Hooligan
Without involving coercion I can't.  I can always tell Bill:  "Hey, I'm not going in there."  He can fire me if he wants and hire somebody who will go into the bar.  If he pulls a gun on me and insists (i.e. coercion) then that is and should be illegal.


You really can't?  It's quite easy to construct such a scenario.  Suppose you work for Bill.  Suppose your wife has been laid off.  You need to earn money for your family.  Therefore, you cannot tell Bill to FO.  To be sure, you can look for other jobs, but at that moment, you cannot afford to quit your job.


If you want to go into hitech's office, that's the price you pay.  It's his office and he smokes.  As long as nobody uses force to get you in there, why should anybody besides hitech tell him if he can smoke in his office.


I dunno hooli.  Does hitech have employees?  Does hitech have the right to smoke exposing his employees to second hand smoke?  Hitech's office isn't a private building, is it?  He employs the public.  Ergo ...


Like the post office you mean?  The only monopolies are government supported ones.


Hooligan, it's ok for you post remarks like that, but both of us know you don't believe it.


Well I don't think Windows is perfect, but a lot of people buy it so the votes would indicate that it is better than brand-X.  I do not believe your premises:  (its a POS, they don't try to improve it).


Hooligan, think about it.  Suppose Microsoft had 25% of the PC OS market.  Do you think they would be straining to to bullet proof their products?  Are they bullet proof now?  Why aren't they straining?  No competition.  Why is there no competition?  Predatory business practices and favorable court rulings.  While MS is not a monopoly dejure, it is a monopoly in fact.

 If you are right then 5 years from now you won't have to worry about using Windows because somebody will take their business away just like they took Wordperfect's so-called-monoply.


Sure, this stuff will eventually shake out and I'm content to wait if the courts will play fair.


 MS DOESN'T HAVE A MONOPLY.  Your alternate choices may be unattractive but YOU STILL CHOOSE.  Your local telephone company may have a monoply.  You can't start string your own phone lines and selling phone service to your neighbors.  The police would come to your door if you tried.  That is a monoply.


Yeah, I'm familiar with the phrase, in fact and in practice.


Where did I say that?  Given the choice:  I will take the army, police and highways and pay for them. The post office should be privatized and the BATF and DOE should go in the dustbin.  I can't think of a compelling reason we should have to license cars.


Well, I agree about the post office, but not much else.  Concerning car licenses, how about tracking of criminals?  How about when a 6 year old is snatched by a pedophile?  Want the neighborhood watch to say "well, his car was yellow and he looked mean?"

curly

[Kieran]

If the people want smoke free public environments... they got them. That to me is democracy... the smokers are free to smoke all they want in their cars, and in their homes, away from public locations.

Wrong. People or workers choose to patronize or work at a place that allows smoking. Absolutely no need for government intrusion. Your statement still amounts to people aren't smart or responsible enough to make choices for themselves.

[lazs2]

democracy should not be involved where rights are concerned.   it really is that simple.

I am confused a little about monopolies.   If they are so bad then how are they good when they are government controlled?
lazs

[Hooligan]

You really can't? It's quite easy to construct such a scenario. Suppose you work for Bill. Suppose your wife has been laid off. You need to earn money for your family. Therefore, you cannot tell Bill to FO. To be sure, you can look for other jobs, but at that moment, you cannot afford to quit your job.

I dunno hooli. Does hitech have employees? Does hitech have the right to smoke exposing his employees to second hand smoke? Hitech's office isn't a private building, is it? He employs the public. Ergo ...

It is still a choice.  You can tell Bill to FO.  Is the risk of second hand smoke worse than unemployment?  It should be up to the individual to decide, just like you can decide to take a dangerous constuction job.  You seem to be missing something as basic as the difference between coercion and employment:  "If you don't mow my lawn I won't pay you" is different than "If you don't mow my lawn I will kill you".  No matter how much you "need" the money for the lawn job, me not paying you is not assault with a deadly weapon.  Once again, if you accept a job with HTC you should be prepared to be in an office with smokers.  Otherwise don't take the job.

Hooligan, it's ok for you post remarks like that, but both of us know you don't believe it.

I believe it because it is true.  

From dictionary.reference.com:

Monoply:

1) Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).

2) Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.

3) A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.

Really, think about it.  Can you legally buy a different O/S than Windows?  You can so it is not a monoply.  Can you name even one non-government sponsored monoply?  I can't.  You can disprove with an example but I don't think that is going to happen.

Hooligan, think about it. Suppose Microsoft had 25% of the PC OS market. Do you think they would be straining to to bullet proof their products? Are they bullet proof now? Why aren't they straining? No competition. Why is there no competition? Predatory business practices and favorable court rulings. While MS is not a monopoly dejure, it is a monopoly in fact.

First of all I think they are straining.  Also nothing is bulletproof, so why do you expect Windows to be?  If Windows is so so crappy why are you and I passing on buying brand X?  You seem to forget that we don't have to buy a copy of Windows 2004 (or whatever the next version is).  If they are going to get my money and your money for the next version of Windows, we have to willingly fork it over and that is why they will continue to add new features and improvements (rather than sell XP forever).  Not to mention, that once they stop upgrading it, it is only a matter of time until somebody takes their market away.  In any case, it is only a matter of time.  IBM, Wordperfect, Ford and a ton of other companies were once in unassailable dominating market positions.  The only certainty is that those positions don't last.  If MS behaved like you seem to think they do, Windows would probably have gone the way of Lotus 123 by now.

Concerning car licenses, how about tracking of criminals?

I think only the most incompetent of criminals don't know how to steal and switch a license plate.  I remain unconvinced that there is a need for them.

Hooligan

[vorticon]

I think only the most incompetent of criminals don't know how to steal and switch a license plate. I remain unconvinced that there is a need for them.

so by your logic its pointless to have photographs on drivers liscences