Authority

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Dec 10, 2016.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,300
    I suspect if all drugs were legal the price would crash and it would not be the huge business it is today.
    Law enforcement needs a reason to exist and drugs provides a good reason.
    If drugs were legal presumably even a bad habit would be affordable so there may be less robbery etc to support habits.
    Supplies to law enforcement would suffer, suppliers of prisons etc it becomes an unbelievable list of folk who would loss income, from suppliers of capital to suppliers of labour.
    Addiction may move to being a medical issue rather than criminal.
    Authority means cash flow.
    Seat belts ...the authority exercised has produced millions for manufactures but taken money away from medical suppliers.
    Each exercise of authority generates money for particular groups ever new law means money to someone.
    It a way to justify taking your money and paying it out to an industry you favour.
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,534
    He has a plan. That's what's so great about God.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,443
    The law is poorly justified, the law reminds people, etc - the law was the subject of the post. Ask yourself how you missed that.

    As far as that law reminding people of their vulnerability to the arbitrary and painfully applied force of a government that can and will override their own judgment and jack their lives around without consideration - is that actually invisible to you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    So you think laws that save lives are poorly justified...got it. There is overwhelming evidence using seat belts saves lives and protects people from injury. Using your line of "reasoning" why have any safety laws. Why have speed laws? Why have stop lights and stop signs. Imagine how much money we could save by not buying stop signs and traffic lights - totally ignoring the increased costs of injuries and property damage and the emotional damage which would follow.

    http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html

    Some people like to lump government into one big nefarious nebulous entity in order to justify radical ideas. But in the US it isn't. The US has a fragmented system of government. It has a federal government, state governments, county governments, city governments and townships and many more.

    States are responsible for driving safety laws. State governments make and enforce the driving safety laws like the use of seat belts. Additionally, it's difficult to see why 90% of Americans would buckle up, i.e. comply with seat belt laws, if they were so unpopular as you have asserted. More over, if most Americans wanted to get rid of seat belt laws they could. But they haven't.

    https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/nhtsa3116
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    There is no higher cost than being permanently disabled or dead.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Perhaps, but not in a good way. We could call the united libertarian party "Crazies United".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Who gets pulled over and asked for a bottle of piss? I've never heard of anyone getting pulled over and asked for a bottle of piss. What would be the legal justification for that? If people get pulled over and are suspected of being under the influence, they are asked to take a breathalyzer or blood test....but a bottle of piss?

    Corruption is another issue, i.e. using the law to generate income. As long as people are people, there will always be corruption and risk of corruption regardless of the laws. It's part of the human condition and that's another discussion.

    Well, that's demagogic gobbledygook. But that's all it its. The problem with libertarianism is not that it is misunderstood. The problem is it is understood. When people understand libertarianism, and when they know the facts, they quickly realize the ideology is fundamentally flawed. Libertarainism like the other "ism", communism, is fundamentally flawed because it requires people to stop acting like people. And as long has people are people, they will act like people.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    I suspect you are right. The solution to every social ill isn't a law. Illicit drugs have been illegal all of my life, and illicit drug use is still a problem and the same goes for other vices like gambling or prostitution. The solution to every social ill isn't a law. We need to be smart about these things, and when it comes to things like illicit drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. I don't think we are. But that's different from safety laws like seat belts.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,443
    That one is, yes.
    Because they protect people from each other, and the careful from the careless - one of the functions of government.
    Which is yet another reason why the law is dubious in need, as well as being poorly justified.
    There's far better justification for vice laws (not that it's adequate, just that it's better than the bogus mandatory buckle up justifications) than for mandatory buckle up laws. Those vices can harm others, especially when poorly regulated.
    You know what? you're actually unable to follow a discussion. It's not a tactic, it's simply beyond you. And that's how laws like mandatory seat belt buckling (and air bags, and the entire "passive restraint" clusterfuck that greets people twice a day every day) get passed and enforced. And then you wonder why people become hostile to the very idea of government.

    Maybe a revisit to the earlier, with an illustration - notice how "misreading" of a particular kind is almost universal among authoritarians:
    The law is poorly justified, the law reminds people, etc - the law was the subject of the post. Ask yourself how you missed that.

    As far as that law reminding people of their vulnerability to the arbitrary and painfully applied force of a government that can and will override their own judgment and jack their lives around without consideration - is that actually invisible to you?

    Ok, one of many illustrations: years ago, when mandatory seat belt laws first were imposed (contrary to promises made, btw, but that's yet another betrayal), one of the common features of such laws was special severity regarding children - they were to be belted in, you irresponsible ignorant parent, and in the back seat, and never mind the obviously minor hardships entailed. They made a big deal out of that. Years later, in some obscure scientific publications and vaguely reported in the back pages of a few newspapers, the statistics came out: children belted into the back seats of cars were more likely to be injured and killed in the event of a crash than children left unbelted, and the injuries involved were of worse kinds - broken backs and necks instead of broken legs and collarbones, that kind of thing.

    Now mind: not only the occasional State law was at fault here, but the universal and incessant national PR campaign - the attitude, the disrespect, the refusal to acknowledge common human assessments of personal situations. The belts have been improved - the PR campaign and the laws it engenders have not.

    And this has political consequences.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    And you think any of that makes sense....well that explains a lot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    While you think saving lives isn't sufficient justification, most people do. That's why we have seat belt laws in all 50 states. That's why we have speed laws. That's why we have stop signs and stop lights. That's why we have lane markers. Unfortunately for you and folks like you, we live in a democracy. If people don't like the laws, they can change them. And clearly they like seat belt and other safety laws. Further, if the fine is larger than your paycheck, you cannot afford to drive a car. You can't afford to buy the gas to put into the car. The median penalty in the United States for not wearing a seat belt is $25.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,534
    I'm wondering if one is born a crank or if that is something that develops later in life?
     
    joepistole likes this.
  14. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,431
    It happens when you start questioning commonly held beliefs...over time, after watching changes take place.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    No, it happens when begin believing stuff for which there is no evidence to support and denying all evidence to the contrary. Question all you will, that's not a problem. But you need evidence and reason, and you needed to acknowledge evidence and reason. If you don't have evidence and reason, if you cannot succinctly make a credible argument supported with evidence and reason, you shouldn't be surprised when people think you are a crank.
     
  16. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,431
    In this discussion my evidence is the change that has taken place over time, or the rules that are current in our society. We are being whipped by our own authoritarians. I had more liberty as a teenager than I have now as an adult, believe it or not.
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,534
    Don't all teenagers? They may have parents limiting certain aspects of their lives but they generally have plenty of time and a freedom from economic pressures. Adults have less of that in general.
     
  18. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,431
    I think kids are growing up in a society where the government plays an ever larger role as a surrogate parent. It's a bit scary, really.
     
  19. Doug Forcett Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5
    I agree. Just look at the parent and minor rights in the HIPAA laws.
     
  20. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,431
    Well, HIPAA is good and bad. Good that it tries to protect a child's privacy, bad that it is so poorly written that compliance is pretty difficult. In essence, it makes the webmaster responsible for the actions of another person's child, even if that webmaster tries to limit their site access to adults only. All that's required is for one bad actor (kid) to throw a wrench in the gears by lying about their age.
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,534
    It all starts with a seat belt...
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    How does that support your assertion? Children regardless of their society have more freedom than adults. That was true in my youth and it's true now. That has always been true. Children don't have to work. They don't have to care for themselves. They don't have to pay bills. They don't have to work. Adults have those responsibilities. Adults have to feed them and care for children and care for themselves. The responsibilities we place on your selves doesn't mean government has grown intrusive or authoritarian. It was your decision as an adult to have children or to engage in behaviors which would reasonably lead to children. Decisions have consequences.

    Just because change has occurred, it doesn't follow that society has marched toward authoritarianism. Society has become more complex too. We know more. There was a time when lead was not known to be a health hazard. Now it is. I grew up in lead painted houses. I breathed lead tainted gasoline fumes. I drank water from lead pipes. It was the norm. Now we know the detrimental effects of lead. We didn't then.

    Back in the days of my youth we also had rivers which spontaneously erupted into flames. We also used toxins which almost wiped out several species including our bald eagle and could have led to our ultimate demise. We know more than we did in the days of your youth. That knowledge allows us to make better decisions. I wouldn't knowingly expose my children to toxins like lead. Maybe you would. But I wouldn't, and I don't think most people would either.

    Just because we have more rules, it doesn't follow that we are more authoritarian than we once were. We still have the same system of governance. We may not like some of the rules or how they are enforced and if that's the case, and if enough people agree with you, then those laws/rules can be changed.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,443
    The question is why we have so many people who can't tell the difference between a lane marker or speeding law, and a law that mandates buckling ones own seat belt.

    Is there a single aspect of anyone's life that cannot be controlled by a law under the justification that lives are saved thereby?

    Actually, you know, we didn't have mandatory usage laws until fairly recently - and they were passed by deception, almost universally: first the mandatory belt availability - that made sense, but some people were worried that it would expand into mandatory usage, so the legislators promised that would not happen; then mandatory usage, but not as a primary offense (could not be used to pull someone over) and the fine kept very small, and that made less sense but the promotors promised that it would never be a primary offense or a serious fine; and then one day it was tweaked a bit and now it is a primary offense and it can cost hundreds of dollars in my state (Minnesota).

    That was a betrayal. A minor one, to be sure, but it's one that people are reminded of every time they get in their car.
    You guys really don't have much of a clue, do you. Has it occurred to you that someone who has enough money for gas may not have much left over? Or better yet: Try looking up the actual cost of a seat belt ticket in the ten most populous States in the Union - say, if it's the third ticket in three years.
    Crankhood develops, from being abused by fools with official power. It currently afflicts a majority of the American voting public, many of whom voted for Clinton on the sole basis that Trump was the only alternative - and wait 'til this mandatory purchase of ripoff corporate monopoly health insurance really kicks in.
    No, they don't. If you don't know that, ask around.

    And when they point out that they don't, telling them to write their Congressman is just the standard bully's response - you get the same line from the guy firing up his straight pipe Harley in the hospital quiet zone: "Write your Congressman". It's a response meant to rub in the helplessness of the complainer - and that's what we get from Clinton backers?
    In this forum, that would require reading comprehension, and the ability to follow simple arguments. Notice the lack of that in your posts - say, 26? And Seattle's, like this:"Wearing seat belts is poorly justified? Wearing seat belts reminds people that they can't trust government? How so?".

    So any time you guys feel up to acknowledging evidence and reason, there's a backlog of missed opportunities here.
    Condescension plays better from information and attention. From inattentive ignorance, not so well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016

Share This Page