Your Political Ideology

[Goldmarble]

Pepperm1nts said
Statistical improbability doesn't matter here. It's a danger. To you, and everyone around you. When we're talking about the chances of a mass-extinction via massive meteor or something, then yeah. We can shrug it off as improbable or impossible to prevent anyway. But when we're talking about societal issues that affect you and everyone around you - that we can prevent - it's different. It's selfish to think you ought to be allowed to drive without a seat-belt, simply because you think the chances of you flying out the windshield and causing further harm and damage are few. Prevention is a real necessity, and a priority. We don't ignore dangers to society because "eh, it's unlikely". And we don't wait for something horrible to happen before we decide "You know, maybe we should have some preventive measures."You might think something is improbable up until the point where you or someone you love is the one in danger. Then you'll be wondering, maybe even outraged, as to why no-one ever took preventive measures. And suddenly, lawsuits. Lawsuits everywhere. Or worse, you die.So let's not wait for horrible shit to happen before we put safety measures in place.As a half-joking side note: Being someone who studied, practiced, and is soon to graduate as an EMT, I'd prefer you didn't fly out the window. Makes everyone's job easier. And you know, less chance that you're dead. That would suck. For you me.

And...I disagree with you. I don't believe in a nanny state. I don't believe in trying to protect everything from the smallest of chances, if it involves giving up freedom. If 20 people in a year die, and 100 get injured, because of our current example; human body flying out of a car, strikes them....you know what? That is no reason to make a law. Shit happens.

Secondly, is if you want to make it law because that corpse might cause injury in the extremely unlikely scenario, then we might as well ban roof-racks for cars because you can stow a couple hundred pounds up there and it can fly off in an accident and cause further harm, just the same as an ejected corpse, right?

Now, again: Even if it was legal to drive without a seatbelt, I still would use one. It's my choice, my prerogative.

[Vortex]

Jannah said
Not necessarily. I have been attacked in the past for my communist views. This thread has remained civil though.

Workers of the world unite! Take up arms against the bourgeoise! Let us band together comrades and Put a end to the capitalist exploitation!

[Jannah]

Vortex said
Workers of the world unite! Take up arms against the bourgeoise! Let us band together comrades and Put a end to the capitalist exploitation!

Indeed. Us comrades must stick together.

[AlienBastard]

I believe too many contradicting things to have a real sense of ideology. I keep thinking of my self as a moderate right wing, but I don't want to associate myself with people who want religion and the state to become one again.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Goldmarble said
And...I disagree with you. I don't believe in a nanny state. I don't believe in trying to protect everything from the smallest of chances, if it involves giving up freedom. If 20 people in a year die, and 100 get injured, because of our current example; human body flying out of a car, strikes them....you know what? That is no reason to make a . Shit happens.Secondly, is if you want to make it law because that corpse might cause injury in the extremely unlikely scenario, then we might as well ban roof-racks for cars because you can stow a couple hundred pounds up there and it can fly off in an accident and cause further harm, just the same as an ejected corpse, right?Now, again: Even if it was legal to drive a seatbelt, I still use one. It's my choice, my prerogative.

Its a seatbelt. Its not a huge declaration of freedom or anything that poses any benefit for ignoring. When you put others in danger for the sake of feeling free thats when you're being selfish.

[ApocalypticaGM]

Goldmarble said
And...I disagree with you. I don't believe in a nanny state. I don't believe in trying to protect everything from the smallest of chances, if it involves giving up freedom. If 20 people in a year die, and 100 get injured, because of our current example; human body flying out of a car, strikes them....you know what? That is no reason to make a . Shit happens.Secondly, is if you want to make it law because that corpse might cause injury in the extremely unlikely scenario, then we might as well ban roof-racks for cars because you can stow a couple hundred pounds up there and it can fly off in an accident and cause further harm, just the same as an ejected corpse, right?Now, again: Even if it was legal to drive a seatbelt, I still use one. It's my choice, my prerogative.

This is absolutely going a bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out a bit of an oversight here. The idea of a body becoming a projectile as I'd mentioned a page or two ago was more with the imagining of a person in the backseat without their belt on. You know, accident happens, the person behind you suddenly projects forward toward your seat or the back of your skull. Sure, your seat might protect you, but if a belt would protect both of you... why not make that required? And that scenario is in no way unlikely either. I'm surprised it hadn't come to mind?

Anyway, I think this would be another example of how a community could create and maintain laws. Wearing a seatbelt is clearly a good idea for all parties. Law or not, people who are educated about the benefits and risks usually choose the option that maintains their health (specifically when that option is free and available). This is a bit similar to smoking. In my state, Washington, it is against most housing policies to smoke indoors and outright illegal to smoke within 25 feet of a place of business. It looks like restriction of a personal action, sure, but there effects had on other individuals without their consent or ability to reasonably avoid such. The fact is laws are agreements between parties to compromise. Compromise means meeting in the middle, and usually also means nobody is wholly satisfied. That's why I think there's power in communal agreements on a more manageable scale. Intentional communities offer the ability to choose and fight for what laws you favour without being one among several tens or hundreds of thousands weighing in. Imagine suddenly your neighbourhood had the power to make certain things legal or illegal. Say you have a couple hundred people under this jurisdiction and everyone gets a say in such a way that does not place an individual's opinion directly to them (unless they out themselves). Suddenly, laws effect a community more directly, one person is a much more significant figure, and should an agreement not be followed the entire community is apt to notice and hold each other accountable. I do not distrust larger governments, I just think that making a law that sweeps a million people spread across hundreds of miles of land seems a bit strange when it comes to topics like smoking pot or marriage equality. Bigger topics like managing pollution and distancing ourselves from non-renewable resources are issues that support everyone and effects everyone, a bit more applicable to a larger government.

What do you all think?

[Gwazi Magnum]

ShonHarris said Suddenly, laws effect a community more directly, one person is a much more significant figure, and should an agreement not be followed the entire community is apt to notice and hold each other accountable. I do not distrust larger governments, I just think that making a law that sweeps a million people spread across hundreds of miles of land seems a bit strange when it comes to topics like smoking pot or marriage equality. Bigger topics like managing pollution and distancing ourselves from non-renewable resources are issues that support everyone and effects everyone, a bit more applicable to a larger government. What do you all think?

Pot and Marriage though have no logical reason behind being illegal. Everything that does support it being illegal is based on falsified scientific studies, homophobia, or lack of education when it comes to drugs/plants. So I'm not sure if those are good examples to be using in this case, mainly cause I'm a bit lost in the point you're trying to make. Cause with those examples it looks like you're saying Silly Laws VS Logical Laws, but I can tell from your general post that's probably not what you're trying to say with that.

In general though if I am getting your general message right, I think Governments should be more focused on country-wide, global issues that effect society as a whole rather than judging/controlling the people they are meant to serve and look out for.

[Goldmarble]

ShonHarris said
This is absolutely going a bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out a bit of an oversight here. The idea of a body becoming a projectile as I'd mentioned a page or two ago was more with the imagining of a person in the backseat without their belt on. You know, accident happens, the person behind you suddenly projects forward toward your seat or the back of your skull. Sure, your seat might protect you, but if a belt would protect both of you... why not make that required? And that scenario is in no way unlikely either. I'm surprised it hadn't come to mind?Anyway, I think this would be another example of how a community could create and maintain laws. Wearing a seatbelt is clearly a good idea for all parties. Law or not, people who are educated about the benefits and risks usually choose the option that maintains their health (specifically when that option is free and available).

Again, because law is not necessary. I didn't consider a person in the back seat not buckling up, because it is irrelevant....but also considered in what I am saying.

The person who owns the car/is driving the car, is the person with the choice: Either they buckle up, or they do not. It is also their responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions in setting their own law of their property: Make their passengers buckle up, or not.

Regardless of law, people drive without seatbelts anyways. Regardless of law, I chose to wear my seatbelt, and when I am driving? Everyone wears their seatbelt, regardless of their personal preferences. Yes, they have a right to their own choice, but if they chose to be my passenger, in my car? My freedom overrules as it does not endanger, nor harm them.

What I am saying, is that laws that displace the onus of responsibility and accountability (IE: Freedom) are unnecessary.

[Pepperm1nts]

How dare our overlords strip us of our god-given freedom to reject seat-belts.

[Goldmarble]

Pepperm1nts said
How dare our overlords strip us of our god-given freedom to reject seat-belts.

Goes on to a lot more things than just seat belts. Seat belt laws are just a tiny fraction of the things that bother me with the idea of our current authoritarian styles of government.

I did not want to bring up larger, more polarizing issues in a thread not about them, so please, take your petty sarcasm with you.

[Jannah]

Pepperm1nts said
How dare our overlords strip us of our god-given freedom to reject seat-belts.

I lol'ed.

[mdk]

Pepperm1nts said
How dare our overlords strip us of our god-given freedom to reject seat-belts.

The principle is, if something is a good idea, do it -- instead of making other people do it. Misplaced empathy is one of the leading causes of shittiness in the country -- "I don't want people to go to hell -- let's ban X, Y, and Z." "I don't want want the children to get on drugs -- let's ban (harmless drugs here)." "I don't want anyone to feel bad ever -- let's make a list of words that nobody can say." Etc.

It's not that we want people to go to hell, or get on drugs, or feel bad. We just don't want D.C. to be the means by which we avoid all these bad things. It's the difference between calling a tow truck, and changing your flat tire on your own. Except in this metaphorical scenario, the tow truck is I guess a duly-elected representative body that convenes on camera for millions of dollars. Why do we need that for every little thing? We don't. IMO.

[Pepperm1nts]

Goldmarble said
Goes on to a lot more things than just seat belts. Seat belt laws are just a tiny fraction of the things that bother me with the idea of our current authoritarian styles of government.I did not want to bring up larger, more polarizing issues in a thread not about them, so please, take your petty sarcasm with you.

Then please, by all means enlighten us in regards to these other issues you speak of. It's not our fault you keep sticking to seat-belts. We've countered your arguments in regards to that already, several times. I wasn't sure how to respond to it a third time, so I made a sarcastic remark. It's not like I came in the topic with nothing but sarcasm in defense of my views. No, I told you how I felt about it. Some of the others did too. But all you've argued is "It is my right to not wear seat-belts because FREEDOM!". We've already argued that's selfish, among other things. But you maintain that your right to reject seat-belts, even at the expense of others, is sacred.

If you want this discussion to go beyond sarcastic remarks, I think at this point you're going to have to give your seat-belt rebellion a break and bring up an issue that enables a better argument on your behalf. If seat-belts are a "tiny fraction of the things that bother you", then why is it still the basis of your argument? I mean, for someone who claims they wear seat-belts anyway, you're really defensive about it.

EDIT:

mdk said

I'm in favor of drug legalization too. The government shouldn't tell you what to put in your body, unless it somehow begins to affect others, which is my point here. Not wearing a seat-belt is a risk to you, and others. As someone mentioned before, passengers who aren't wearing seat-belts (because they're part of the seat-belt rebellion movement, maybe) risk injuring or even killing others inside of the vehicle with their bodies. And, someone in the front seat of a car can be ejected through the front and hit someone. You can say that's unlikely, sure, but it's possible. And it's putting your life, as well as someone else, in danger.

As I mentioned before, even if it's unlikely, it doesn't mean there shouldn't be preventive/safety measures. There are preventive measures on every-day things. And I guarantee you people would flip shit if something happened and it was revealed that preventive measures existed but weren't practiced.

[mdk]

Pepperm1nts said And I guarantee you people would flip shit if something happened and it was revealed that preventive measures existed but weren't practiced.

Some people do, yes. Two prime examples are jumping out in my head.... there was a major tornado last year (year before?) in Oklahoma, crazy path of destruction right through downtown. Immediately in the aftermath, we had people (I wanna say Bloomberg himself) lining up to shout about why didn't they have more tornado shelters? Why isn't it a law for every house to have a $50k tornado shelter? Well, the answer was simple -- they cost like $50k. But you weren't supposed to be allowed to make that decision for yourself. Predominantly-blue areas couldn't stop pulling their hair out, and predominantly-red areas couldn't have cared less; the issue went away. The people who want to pay the money and get the shelter? They've got 'em. Nobody lost there. The people who didn't, didn't. Life continues.

Second example is the fertilizer factory in Texas that blew up (town of West). This would be your 'other side of the coin' example -- see in this case, the regulators (reportedly) didn't know certain goings-on in the factory, and their rules (while followed to the letter) were not sufficient to prevent a massive, deadly explosion. Now on the one hand, I might argue "Well doesn't that just prove that regulations are blah blah blah," but fact is, place blew the fuck up. If there's one thing 99% of people agree on, it's 'Let's not explode and die today.'

So what's the point of all this, well, two sides of the coin I guess. On the one hand, safety regulations can be expensive and futile (what good is a $50k tornado shelter in your home, if the tornado hits during work hours?), and people shouldn't necessarily be forced to take out a second mortgage on their home just to pass some inspection. On the other hand, if the safety rules people aren't looking, entire towns explode into actual fireballs (sometimes). Obviously what we need is a balance, and basically nobody disputes that. The more intrusive your rules, the more likely you are to meet resistance -- like hey, most people who have their shoes untied trip more than people who lace up. Let's pass laws that put shoes-untied pedestrians on probationary ticket fine schedules after three shoes-untied violations. We'll need to pass out licenses so that we can revoke them in order to properly enforce the law. Crazy, right? At some level, this is what we're fighting against when we resist the 'nanny state.' Look, if I trip on my laces, I'll trip on my laces, and I'll learn from it, and I don't want anybody looking over my shoulder to see if I'm using the right bunny-ear knot. Does that make sense?

[Pepperm1nts]

That makes sense, and those are good points. I agree with most of it.

But.. all cars come with seat-belts. If you bought a car, you have seat-belts. You're not buying the seat-belts separately for a ridiculous price. So the least you can do is consider the dangers to you and others, and put the damn thing on. It's a damn seat-belt. Your rights aren't being stepped on, the world isn't going to end. And when you get pulled over and fined for not wearing one, it's not because the government is tyrannical. It's because there are rules and safety measures that should be followed when possible.

But I'll admit, at this point it's kind of silly to be arguing about seat-belts. But I blame Goldmarble for that.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, if it only affects you (ie: tripping on your laces), then the government shouldn't interfere. Falling because your laces were untied isn't going to put whoever you fall on in a coma. But if it's something where your life, as well as others', are in danger, then the government should be allowed to step in.

[mdk]

Pepperm1nts said
That makes sense, and those are good points. I agree with most of it. But.. all cars come with seat-belts. If you bought a car, you have seat-belts. You're not buying the seat-belts separately for a ridiculous price. So the least you can do is consider the dangers to you and others, and put the damn thing on. It's a damn seat-belt. Your rights aren't being stepped on, the world isn't going to end. And when you get pulled over and fined for not wearing one, it's not because the government is tyrannical. It's because there are rules and safety measures that should be followed when possible.But I'll admit, at this point it's kind of silly to be arguing about seat-belts. But I blame Goldmarble for that.

Well I mean, they come with seatbelts because we passed a law that makes them install seatbelts, which you're paying for (the law, the compliance tests, and the actual seatbelts and tech). Cars **totally** used to come without seatbelts (and without mirrors, too). It's sort of like an automatic transmission -- those used to cost extra, but now if you want manual (which makes you a better, safer, quicker, and more fuel-efficient driver) it costs more.

....I don't know how it's 'sort of like' that, now that I.... you know what it might be MDK's bed time. POINT IS -- nothing's free, especially not things you're buying. But I digress. I absolutely agree that rules must be followed, I just.... I wish more people would acknowledge, then, the implicit significance of making rules. Laws are serious business, even when they're about once-trivial things (like seatbelts, or shoelaces, or whatever). Look up the phrase 'regulatory capture' if you're ever bored and want to be pissed off about concepts that shouldn't exist.

[Pepperm1nts]

Eh, that's true.

I edited in a summary of my thoughts into the last post:

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, if it only affects you (ie: tripping on your laces), then the government shouldn't interfere. Falling because your laces were untied isn't going to put whoever you fall on in a coma. But if it's something where your life, as well as others', are in danger, then the government should be allowed to step in.

[mdk]

Would've missed that edit. This should be quick, and then seriously, bed.

I guess what I'm saying is, if it only affects you (ie: tripping on your laces), then the government shouldn't interfere. Falling because your laces were untied isn't going to put whoever you fall on in a coma. But if it's something where your life, as well as others', are in danger, then the government should be allowed to step in.

To me the government should never 'be allowed to' interfere, per se, but really that's just a wordgame -- the punchline to which is, 'The government should be compelled to interfere,' meaning, if they're going to take any sort of action over pretty much anything, it should be to the sound of threats of voting them out if they fail. In other words if the issue isn't causing a public outcry **demanding** legislation, then it doesn't need to be legislated.

Which is derived from how I see our government -- not a panel of experts or a safety squad, just representatives of who we are and what we want, able to have the conversation and spell all the words right when they craft a bill. I don't want the feds out there hawking for a chance to make my life safer or healthier or whatever -- I want them to do nothing, until I require them to do something specific, and then they can go back to doing nothing.

....I'm taking us in a whooooole nother direction, huh. I'm shutting up now. Please return to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Vortex]

mdk said
POINT IS -- nothing's free, especially not things you're buying.

Well that could be fixed if capitalism was abolished...

Anyway yeah I agree with most of what you guys a re saying. Why should you be allowed to cause damage to others in the name of freedom?

[Vortex]

This is a turn in conversation I know but bear with me. The Australian Government is seeking to allow racism and homophobia "legal" as it "infringes on the liberties of the Australian people". Like all things the current Australian Government says I disagree with, but honestly why should somebody in a minority have to put up with all the crap they receive from the white majority? Thoughts?