Politics Government intervention

[AndSmithMustScore]

So everyone that would come over to said property, would not have kids at all, or not likely to ever in the future?

it still not the owners issue. It's the responsibility of the childs parents to look after their own kids.

Do we fence off every beach, every river, every creek because some kid might wander down to them without a parent and drown in them?

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Emmissions standards, Safety Standards and other Design standards should be self regulated?

The devise costs close to nothing? so whats the issue?

The issue is don't force things onto people if they don't wish to partake in that process. Provide the option for those who do, but don't force it by law upon those who do not.

If someone wants to drive a Prius good for them. But if someone wants to drive a dirty big V8 that chews up petrol and spews out emissions then why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to.

It's up to the market to dictate what people want, not be dictated by the government.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

So the law should only apply to people who have children? Fine. Still not very libertarian.

Why is the law there in the first place?

To protect stupid people from themselves?

As a society we already pay billions of $ to guard and protect against people who are either stupid or lacking in common sense.

When is enough enough?

 

[Clay Davis]

Why is the law there in the first place?

To protect stupid people from themselves?

Are you saying that if a three year old falls into a pool and drowns it is his/her own fault for being stupid? Amazing.

 

[Clay Davis]

What if they cost $1,000 per car; what if it were $10,000?

Where do you draw the line?

I'm sure the government is quite capable of drawing the line somewhere. The argument is about whether a govt that does something in these cases should exist.

In my opinion, arguing for the 'do nothing' principle is as absurd as arguing that a life has near infinite value. If you want to live in a world where ideas and beliefs are pure, then fine. But neither you nor I don't live in that world. No system of human ideology accords with this world.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Are you saying that if a three year old falls into a pool and drowns it is his/her own fault for being stupid? Amazing.

Uh, that would make it the parents fault.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

That's like a little dolphin, isn't it?

Ah craps.

No spellcheck on the computer I was using, so I don't notice the typos.

Anyway Chops, you should know that it is spelt porpoise not pupose.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

My original post isn't about protecting stupid people from themselves.

There are a multitude of factors that go into making a decision of why you'd buy a car. Internal releases on a boot would be a remote factor if at all. However, the chance of being locked in a boot is not insignificant. The consequences of it occurring are huge. And the occurrence may have nothing to do with "stupid people" but unfortunate people.

What is the cost? An idea of liberty is greater than a life? How is a concept more important than a person's life? It doesn't actually exist.

There are plenty of examples of children/toddlers playing around cars and accidently looking themselves in the boot or the tailgate area of a station wagon and dying after not being able to get themselves out.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

There are plenty of examples of children/toddlers playing around cars and accidently looking themselves in the boot or the tailgate area of a station wagon and dying after not being able to get themselves out.

More children die getting hit by cars.

Blanket ban on cars must be in order then.

 

[Clay Davis]

More children die getting hit by cars.

Blanket ban on cars must be in order then.

Obviously being Catholic has stunted your development. Who is calling for a ban on cars? The question is whether govt can make the assessment to legislate in certain instances. Making that assessment should consider all factors - the cost of creating new safety regulations, for instance, versus the benefit of saving lives.

Libertarians believe that the government has no place making that assessment. Why?

 

[Last of the Roys]

I'm sure the government is quite capable of drawing the line somewhere. The argument is about whether a govt that does something in these cases should exist.

In my opinion, arguing for the 'do nothing' principle is as absurd as arguing that a life has near infinite value. If you want to live in a world where ideas and beliefs are pure, then fine. But neither you nor I don't live in that world. No system of human ideology accords with this world.

You give your game away with your belief in the all-knowing power of benevolent governments. In fact your OP troll was as obvious as they come in any case.

I consider myself very libertarian relative to most people. To a lot of libertarian minded people it is not necessarily an all or nothing question - in fact strong (but limited in scope) democratic government institutions are the cornerstone of virtually all libertarian thinking and of all modern successful economies (I know you will find it hard to get your head around that one, but do try). The protection of property rights and people from crime are a couple of the absolute core reasons for the need for government in the first place.

There is a role for government - but only where the benefits to society clearly outweigh the costs. However, it is people like yourself that often exaggerate the case for government interventions without also realising that governments themselves can and often do make very bad mistakes as well.

Markets aren't completely perfect, but the government cure can also be a lot worse than the disease.

So the point stands - what if these devices were $1000, what about $10,000 per car - where do you draw the line? I thoroughly explained that to you in my post which you ignored in order to continue your trolling.

There are still some reasonable arguments, besides the ones I made, that the government should not intervene in these types of maters, unless there is some clear economic reason as to why this particular market would fail. Perhaps governments should, for instance, move back to their core functions of protecting people & property by trying to reduce crime / protect society from criminals (which would reduce the original problem, and many others as well).

As for the pool thing - the same sort of principles apply. My educated guess on that one is that the costs have outweighed the benefits. If you have a pool, teaching your kid to swim should be the number one priority.

(Or maybe the Government should fence off all beaches / coastal land around Australia just to be consistent????)

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Obviously being Catholic has stunted your development. Who is calling for a ban on cars? The question is whether govt can make the assessment to legislate in certain instances. Making that assessment should consider all factors - the cost of creating new safety regulations, for instance, versus the benefit of saving lives.

Libertarians believe that the government has no place making that assessment. Why?

Well you do realise restricting the use of cars would save considerably more lives than putting fences round pool and catches on boots?

And yet those who legislate us on all and sundry won't go to car companies and tell them to limit cars to 60kph even though it would save countless lives. Same goes for alcohol and the issues it causes.

Do you see the issue here?

We are over legislated on things that should be of a more personal choice, yet the big things the governments won't touch.

The Libertarian believes that their home is their castle, and any interference within that sphere from outside influences is not required.

As for me being Catholic that has **** all to do with anything.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

The Libertarian believes that their home is their castle, and any interference within that sphere from outside influences is not required.

Agreed.
"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." William Pitt on English laws inherited by us, guaranteeing rights 'forevermore' and upheld in our constitution.

Yet now you can be fined tens of thousands of dollars for cutting down a tree on your own property.

Clay, I'm curious as to how you came to believe that the government knows where to draw the line.

 

[Old Spice]

There are thousands of reasons for govt intervention. The idea that the market will resolve everything is the most fantastic notion I've heard. The building of roads goes back to the Roman Empire.

It benefits the state and the people to have such infrastructure. I wouldn't want to be waiting for a maganimous individual to create parks, keep beaches clean, develop technical schools or reduce costs for country people. The profit motive fails in many respects, and defs needs a watching over in other respects.

 

[Clay Davis]

You give your game away with your belief in the all-knowing power of benevolent governments. In fact your OP troll was as obvious as they come in any case.

Where am I believing this "all-knowing power of benevolent govts"? I am simply assuming that they are capable of making a cost-benefit assessment. Just as the court system can when it comes to crime. Do you think sentencing for killings is not cost-benefit? No two murders are alike - and sentences will be given out according to the crime and the person. There is no expectation that a judge/jury is all-knowing, simply that they can deprive a person's liberty based on the evidence presented to them. I don't see how it can't apply to any walk of life, so therefore, the state has a role in legislating where there are similar cost-benefit equations

From my point of view, my desire to not put fences on my swimming pool is no different to my desire to chop off a person's head. They are both liberties I may wish to exercise. Why is murder restricted? Because of cost-benefit. Same with fences on swimming pools.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy land of absolute morals.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Where am I believing this "all-knowing power of benevolent govts"? I am simply assuming that they are capable of making a cost-benefit assessment. Just as the court system can when it comes to crime. Do you think sentencing for killings is not cost-benefit? No two murders are alike - and sentences will be given out according to the crime and the person. There is no expectation that a judge/jury is all-knowing, simply that they can deprive a person's liberty based on the evidence presented to them. I don't see how it can't apply to any walk of life, so therefore, the state has a role in legislating where there are similar cost-benefit equations

From my point of view, my desire to not put fences on my swimming pool is no different to my desire to chop off a person's head. They are both liberties I may wish to exercise. Why is murder restricted? Because of cost-benefit. Same with fences on swimming pools.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy land of absolute morals.

Murder is restricted because in doing so you are encroaching on someone else's life.

Not putting up a fence around a pool is not even in the same ballpark when considering personal liberties.

Pool fence = Your choice upon your property

Murder = Your choice against someone elses personal choice (to live)

 

[Clay Davis]

Murder is restricted because in doing so you are encroaching on someone else's life.

Why does this matter to me? It isn't my life. The perfectly free person can do what ever they like - if they fear being murdered, why shouldn't they protect themselves in the manner they wish? If they don't, and end up being murdered, then surely it is their own fault for not taking the proper precautions?

Not putting up a fence around a pool is not even in the same ballpark when considering personal liberties.

We're talking about pools not parks.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Why does this matter to me? It isn't my life. The perfectly free person can do what ever they like - if they fear being murdered, why shouldn't they protect themselves in the manner they wish? If they don't, and end up being murdered, then surely it is their own fault for not taking the proper precautions?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there?

The Libertarian belief is that you have the right to protect yoursef, your family and your property.

You don't have the right though to impinge on another persons very same freedoms and rights.

We're talking about pools not parks.

Pools on private properties.

Yet public places which are just as potentially dangerous are left unregulated.

 

[Clay Davis]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there?

The Libertarian belief is that you have the right to protect yoursef, your family and your property.

You don't have the right though to impinge on another persons very same freedoms and rights.

That's drawing the line.

If that's your point, then yes, libertarians like to draw the line. They are ideologically impure, yet like most '***** they hold themselves as a beacon of ideological purity. Far from the case.

What is 'the right'? I perfectly have the right to impinge on another person's freedoms and rights. Who is stopping me?

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

That's drawing the line.

If that's your point, then yes, libertarians like to draw the line. They are ideologically impure, yet like most '***** they hold themselves as a beacon of ideological purity. Far from the case.

What is 'the right'? I perfectly have the right to impinge on another person's freedoms and rights. Who is stopping me?

Who said Libertarians(classical ones) didn't have any "lines"?

It's about where you draw those lines and how many of them there are.

You really shouldn't call people "*****" when you display a lack of understanding of what's being said, which then makes you the "****".

If you think you have the right to impinge on others freedoms and rights then you're some kind of fascist prick most likely. Because those are the traits they display.

 

[Clay Davis]

Who said Libertarians(classical ones) didn't have any "lines"?

So where's this ideological purity that allows the state to interfere with some freedoms but not others

It's about where you draw those lines and how many of them there are.

Nothing sentence.

You really shouldn't call people "*****" when you display a lack of understanding of what's being said, which then makes you the "****".

Hehehehe.

If you think you have the right to impinge on others freedoms and rights then you're some kind of fascist prick most likely. Because those are the traits they display.

I don't think I have 'the right' to do anything. I certainly have the ability to do many things.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

So where's this ideological purity that allows the state to interfere with some freedoms but not others

No ideology is pure, it's been created by man and we all have biases and opinions.

Our lives aren't just interfered with by the Federal government, it's also interfered with at the state level and local council level.

Local Councils should be abolished due to the amount of bureaucratic bullshit they impose upon us.

I don't think I have 'the right' to do anything. I certainly have the ability to do many things.

We all have the ability to do many things. It's whether you apply common sense and some respect for other people into the equation which will determine whether you carry out any of those things.

It's at this conjuncture where the different political ideologies will branch off into their own mindsets and begin to impose their views upon such situations.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

That's drawing the line.

If that's your point, then yes, libertarians like to draw the line. They are ideologically impure, yet like most '***** they hold themselves as a beacon of ideological purity. Far from the case.

What is 'the right'? I perfectly have the right to impinge on another person's freedoms and rights. Who is stopping me?

The law?

You've gotta be taking the piss, surely?

'The line' you presume libertarians to draw is called the Law - common law or law of the land - as distinct from statutes.
One served the commonwealth well for over half a millenia and applies to everyone equally, the other is (in the main) used by the state to gradually increase its power and further interfere with citizens lives, kids, marriage, property, privacy, the ability to go about ones private business unhindered and requires your consent which the state conveniently neglects to tell you.

 

[Clay Davis]

The law actively stops a murderer from murdering?

Well, I'll be. Must be amazing, this the law.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

The law actively stops a murderer from murdering?

Well, I'll be. Must be amazing, this the law.

You were talking about your right - here, let me recap for you..

I perfectly have the right to impinge on another person's freedoms and rights. Who is stopping me?

Could you point out where you discussed anything even remotely similar to 'actively stopping a murderer from murdering'?