^Precisely, it's a shame that "compromise" is a dirty word in Congress.
^Precisely, it's a shame that "compromise" is a dirty word in Congress.
friedgreencorrado wrote: Well, to me it's the same as a criminal case. Am I still guilty, even thought I have abandoned the behavior? It's a slippery slope. As to this particular discussion, it's a really just a point of discussion.
In a criminal case, you are tried and convicted. In this case, you did do drugs, so you suffer the consequences, no? Say there is damage to your heart, that's an underlying medical condition; for someone to provide service to you, they MUST know that. Not telling them is fraud. If you practice certain types of oral sex (to reference the hilarious post someone else made) that are known to cause XX (I'm making this up at this point), they must know that.
2nd pointIt really is, but I see it as a fundamental portion of the discussion; personal responsibility. I take issue with the way Eddie argues his point; you can not REASONABLY tell me that anybody in North America does not have the "slightest" inkling that drugs are bad (for instance, utilizing your example). There is no ignorance on that subject, to go through life without hearing a single bad thing about drugs is... well... preposterous. As madmallard has pointed out, what is a case of the extreme minority is being blown into a case of the norm. It just isn't true. Eddie actually says it himself "millions". The population of the USA is 300+ millions. 10 million people is 0.03%. I think at some point it has to be accepted the ROI isn't there. No matter how much money you throw at certain issues (wars in the middle east anyone?) some problems aren't going to be solved. Some people will ALWAYS be left behind, which is part of the reason utopia will never happen. Finite resources, infinite ways to use them.
And that, in my opinion, is a LARGE part of the problem; trying to justify a ROI that isn't possible. This isn't a zero sum game, the way it is at the moment is a losing game. And I believe it requires a fundamental change in your society. Hell, we need it up north here!
HiTempguy wrote: you can not REASONABLY tell me that anybody in North America does not have the "slightest" inkling that drugs are bad (for instance, utilizing your example). There is no ignorance on that subject, to go through life without hearing a single bad thing about drugs is... well... preposterous.
I recall clearly via the media bombardment, though I had no driver's license yet, that at one point the U.S. federal government said "55 saves lives". About as catchy, and about as effective, as "Just Say No".
You could argue that everybody who drove over 55mph was flouting a law there's no way they could avoided hearing about, and deserved to pay for their flagrant violation of the law.
I've known too many smart, hard-working, self-sufficient people who broke both of those laws to think that we can just write off people who don't color completely within the lines. I include in that group both people who've never had a misstep such that you'd ever know, and some who've stumbled but are generally much more a benefit than a liability to the world around them.
Please correct me if I've mischaracterized your argument, but I gathered it essentially as "that's against the law, you can't have avoided hearing about it, thus your standing as a reasonable person with protections and benefits the same as most people is hereby forfeit."
I remain in the camp which believes that while there are certainly limits to what people should get away with, that everybody loses when we write people off too soon.
On the topic of ROI, I'll admit up front that philosophically, I don't feel that addresses some of the important bits of the human condition. Obviously, that's a matter of opinion, and yours is every bit as valid as mine. The ROI view chafes at my notion that one of the central aspects of how we should all get along is to do what makes as many people as possible as happy as possible. If (and only if) that makes sense to you, a lot of resources can be "wasted" on making sure the low-water-mark of existence isn't too squalid. (EDIT: Actually, I suppose you could easily believe that making the worst conditions less awful doesn't require a desire to make everybody as okay as possible.)
I do think it's interesting that one of the things that is common to a number of different takes on all these issues is the notion of getting the best out of people. Leaving aside the political names for these viewpoints, there are those who emphasize the individual's role, and feel that the challenge of unaided independence and the fulfillment of personal responsibility is the most effective way to get the best from people. At the (some?) other end of things is the viewpoint that in this modern world, where from a technical standpoint the basics of survival could no longer be a matter of daily struggle in terms of sheer capacity to grow food and build shelter, that a cooperative model which lessens that fundamental concern and frees the individual up to pursue what they can be beyond merely existing has a lot of promise.
I very much doubt that anybody on this forum, living in a society where if they did nothing they'd get fed and sheltered, would do nothing. I don't know the proportion of the population, but is it the same group who is characterised on the one hand as too small a number to worry about and too large a number to be allowed to be a burden on the rest? Are these the same people who would just take the state-funded bread and roof and call it a life?
I hope that's been a halfway-coherent touch on a few of the points that this has raised for me.
Wow, lots of good points here. As far as personal responsibility..well, IMO-I took it! I got off that crap, I focused upon refining my skills, and eventually ended up working for one of the top players in my industry for 20yrs. I think that's why I was tempted by the "reformed criminal" concept enough to use it as an example in the first place. But as oldsaw posted, do we (as a society) ever absolve people from the reprecussions of their previous behavior?
And Ransom's comment about his bud that had the stroke at 35 (and the ins. co. reaction) was actually brought home to us IRL today. My gf's son had been showing symptoms of early onset puberty (he just turned 7), his first tests were today. He's got the testosterone levels of a body-builder. I'm not sure of the biology of all of it, but his body isn't producing enough cortisol. Now we need tests on the adrenal gland. She was told they can't find what they need with an ultrasound, time for an abdominal CAT. And that seems to be just the beginning.
She is a detention officer for a County Jail system. She'll probably make $18K this year-if she's lucky (it's a newish job, she started in May). We're still waiting to see what the insurance is going to do (United Healthcare HMO).
Like Fast Eddie asked, "..where do we draw the line?" Drawing it at me because of my previous behavior seems reasonable (although I, of course, still disagree with it..I believe that rehabilitiation & a return to being a productive citizen should count for something, but the concerns of you who do not are, I must admit, reasonable..), but what of this kid? He's never done anything wrong..the cause may even be genetic. And yet, here we are. What's causing this is going to be expensive to find..and probably even more expensive to fix.
Sorry to keep dragging it out, guys..I'm just shocked that the the issues we're talking about just went from hypothetical to reality today, and just had to do something to blow off some steam (at life, not at y'all). Again, respect to everyone on the thread for actually listening to each other. Something like this, we coulda floundered on page 1.
ransom wrote:HiTempguy wrote: you can not REASONABLY tell me that anybody in North America does not have the "slightest" inkling that drugs are bad (for instance, utilizing your example). There is no ignorance on that subject, to go through life without hearing a single bad thing about drugs is... well... preposterous.I recall clearly via the media bombardment, though I had no driver's license yet, that at one point the U.S. federal government said "55 saves lives". About as catchy, and about as effective, as "Just Say No". You could argue that everybody who drove over 55mph was flouting a law there's no way they could avoided hearing about, and deserved to pay for their flagrant violation of the law.
Must......re....sist......car.....joke.....I can't! (ransom, please recall that I agree with what you posted when you read it).
I know I paid plenty back then...before I learned how to read a radar detector, anyway..
friedgreencorrado wrote: Sorry to keep dragging it out, guys..I'm just shocked that the the issues we're talking about just went from hypothetical to reality today, and just had to do *something* to blow off some steam (at life, *not* at y'all). Again, respect to everyone on the thread for actually listening to each other. Something like this, we coulda floundered on page 1.
No need to apologize, man. You're handling a severely emotional situation (and now two) that we've latched onto and hashed out as if it was a hypothetical in a textbook like it's nothing, so kudos.
I think we've all learned something over these past few really good threads. I think I've learned that more reasonableness and less people worship (My politician can beat up your politician) is what we need here. These ideas all have merit.
I just want to say, this may be the first political thread I have actually enjoyed reading. 
Lots of great ideas here, we need to have a GRM town hall meeting.
tuna55 wrote:friedgreencorrado wrote: Sorry to keep dragging it out, guys..I'm just shocked that the the issues we're talking about just went from hypothetical to reality today, and just had to do *something* to blow off some steam (at life, *not* at y'all). Again, respect to everyone on the thread for actually listening to each other. Something like this, we coulda floundered on page 1.No need to apologize, man. You're handling a severely emotional situation (and now two) that we've latched onto and hashed out as if it was a hypothetical in a textbook like it's nothing, so kudos. I think we've all learned something over these past few really good threads. I think I've learned that more reasonableness and less people worship (My politician can beat up your politician) is what we need here. These ideas all have merit.
Thanks, Tuna. Actuallly, I've learned the same. I think it helps that we all understand that the current situation can't last, and we all wish for something better to replace it, regardless of our personal thoughts about how to do so. Therein lies the need for compromise. As other folks have said, if it was a pack of real citizens discussing this stuff up in DC, we'd at least be making some sort of progress, instead of just "spinning our wheels" in a muddy ditch.
EastCoastMojo wrote: I just want to say, this may be the first political thread I have actually enjoyed reading.
ECM, to the best of my recollection, it's called "The Challenge". Never been to one because I've never built a car for it. But I'm wondering if the rest of us should just go watch the thing for the "fellowship" (if you'll forgive this old atheist for using that particular word..to me, it seems the only one that reallly fits! ).
Yeah, you might be on to somethin' 
So how does one go about getting into politics?
I suppose I could write a letter to Jim Inhoffe (apparently my grandfather was appointed county commissioner by Inhoffe, back when he was the mayor of Tulsa, and my Grandfather was being groomed to run for mayor before his death).
This is something that I've actually thought about before, but, in my part of the country, not being a member of a church or having children (only 29, but still) would likely remove any chance of even a post in my small suburb outside of Tulsa.
In reply to z31maniac:
I think you need to talk to him:
z31maniac wrote: So how does one go about getting into politics? I suppose I could write a letter to Jim Inhoffe (apparently my grandfather was appointed county commissioner by Inhoffe, back when he was the mayor of Tulsa, and my Grandfather was being groomed to run for mayor before his death). This is something that I've actually thought about before, but, in my part of the country, not being a member of a church or having children (only 29, but still) would likely remove any chance of even a post in my small suburb outside of Tulsa.
I've actually threatened to run for city council, but I fear that would only lead to a run for state legislature and beyond...
DILYSI Dave wrote:z31maniac wrote: So how does one go about getting into politics? I suppose I could write a letter to Jim Inhoffe (apparently my grandfather was appointed county commissioner by Inhoffe, back when he was the mayor of Tulsa, and my Grandfather was being groomed to run for mayor before his death). This is something that I've actually thought about before, but, in my part of the country, not being a member of a church or having children (only 29, but still) would likely remove any chance of even a post in my small suburb outside of Tulsa.I've actually threatened to run for city council, but I fear that would only lead to a run for state legislature and beyond...
I've looked into it. It isn't that hard. I would actually suggest that everyone who has posted here look into it a bit. I couldn't give up the time with my family to go and do it, but if anyone has the inkling that they could do better than their guy at WHATEVER position, I highly recommend that you try. The world will be a better place, even if you don't want to hold a public office.
I've casually looked into it. One of the easiest ways is to join/participate in the local chapter of your political party of choice. This would be the best way to learn who the players are, what positions you'd have the best chances of winning and to get some financial assistance towards things like those annoying little signs that get put all over the place. Basically: Learn the game from the inside. You can go at it completely on your own as a pure independent, but it will likely be more difficult and costly. Plus, your chances of being effective if you do get elected are less.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: I use this as an absurd example just to make the point. Say you're 16 and you fail your driver's test. Now, when you go take it again, you're usuing more government resources than I did passing it first time. It costs me money because you didn't study the first time. So, should you lose your ability to get your license because you didn't study? Why should I have to pay for your mistake?
Well, it ends up costing a lot more to deny the person a license, because then he has a serious barrier to being able to find a job. At the very least we lose overall economic produtivity, and at worst we create a welfare case. Sort of like how clogging up prisons with nonviolent drug offenders actually costs us many times more than it "costs" in enforcement/judicial/corrections expenses. There has to be a balance between holding people responsible for their actions and going so far that you hurt everyone in the name of "justice".
Josh wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote: I use this as an absurd example just to make the point. Say you're 16 and you fail your driver's test. Now, when you go take it again, you're usuing more government resources than I did passing it first time. It costs me money because you didn't study the first time. So, should you lose your ability to get your license because you didn't study? Why should I have to pay for your mistake?Well, it ends up costing a lot more to deny the person a license, because then he has a serious barrier to being able to find a job. At the very least we lose overall economic produtivity, and at worst we create a welfare case. Sort of like how clogging up prisons with nonviolent drug offenders actually costs us many times more than it "costs" in enforcement/judicial/corrections expenses. There has to be a balance between holding people responsible for their actions and going so far that you hurt everyone in the name of "justice".
So, we should relax licensing requirements further, with the hope that every driver will contribute more to society than they take?
Do you want to apply that thought process to physicians, nurses, commercial pilots , or (insert your choice here), too?
Just askin..........
oldsaw wrote: So, we should relax licensing requirements further, with the hope that every driver will contribute more to society than they take? Do you want to apply that thought process to physicians, nurses, commercial pilots , or (insert your choice here), too? Just askin..........
I believe the assertion was not to relax requirements, but that it wouldn't make sense to deny somebody another chance to take the test on the grounds that the re-test is an unfair burden on the taxpayers who passed the first time.
In reply to ransom:
My bad.....
Absurd examples can lead to absurd conclusions.
oldsaw wrote: Do you want to apply that thought process to physicians, nurses, commercial pilots , or (insert your choice here), too?
It's just a hypothetical. And I don't think he said to make anything easier. Just pointing out that it makes sense for us to eat some public cost in everyone's best interest. Though you do a good job pointing out why government regulation of certain things makes a lot of sense. Government isn't as evil as we are sometimes led to believe.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Government isn't as evil as we are sometimes led to believe.
Right. And thankfully there is a whole spectrum of government control/intervention between Anarchy and Absolute Authoritarian Fascist Communism.
There is a sweet spot, or more likely bell-curve range, for the amount of governmental power that is most beneficial to a society. It is our job as citizens to make sure that we keep within that ideal range.
Frankly, I think our society actually does a reasonably good job. Sure, it's easy to find problems, but my life and the lives of the vast majority in this country are pretty good. I have a healthy amount of both freedom and security. Our society gets a lot more right than it does wrong.
Salanis wrote: There is a sweet spot, or more likely bell-curve range, for the amount of governmental power that is most beneficial to a society.
Just a thought. Let's suppose that we could all agree on that exact point. The entire country agrees what level of government is most beneficial to the most people. Is that really what we want? It's not necessarily what I want. It may be more efficient for me to hire a plumber, hire a guy to cut my lawn, fix my cars and walk my dog, but I don't want that either. At some point I just want as much freedom as possible, regardless of greater-good type concerns...
Not really aimed at anything, just food for thought.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:oldsaw wrote: Do you want to apply that thought process to physicians, nurses, commercial pilots , or (insert your choice here), too?It's just a hypothetical. And I don't think he said to make anything easier. Just pointing out that it makes sense for us to eat some public cost in everyone's best interest. Though you do a good job pointing out why government regulation of certain things makes a lot of sense. Government isn't as evil as we are sometimes led to believe.
Government is only as evil as one perceives it or as evil as we allow it.
Contrast the debates surrounding the Patriot Act and the HealthCare Reform Act. Both allow government extreme latitudes and (though legal) both are very intrusive. However, the most strident supporters/detractors of both tend to side with opposing political goals and ideals.
We fall into the "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" argument.
In reply to tuna55:
That's an excellent point, and gets us a bit closer to what the right question is, I think.
So we have one bell curve defining something along the lines of "amount of government which does the most net good for the most people". But we may not necessarly, as a society, want to try to keep ourselves pegged at the highest point of that curve, depending on the sum of our preferences about how to live.
It's difficult deciding amongst many millions of people how much we want to support each other, put up with each other, give each other room, expect of each other, etc...
tuna55 wrote:Salanis wrote: There is a sweet spot, or more likely bell-curve range, for the amount of governmental power that is most beneficial to a society.Just a thought. Let's suppose that we could all agree on that exact point. The entire country agrees what level of government is most beneficial to the most people. Is that really what we want? It's not necessarily what I want. It may be more efficient for me to hire a plumber, hire a guy to cut my lawn, fix my cars and walk my dog, but I don't want that either. At some point I just want as much freedom as possible, regardless of greater-good type concerns...
I understand. I don't think there is a precise "best point", or if there is, it probably fluctuates.
I hate to say it, but I don't think what people want most is "as much freedom as possible". Most people don't want full-on anarchy. We like certain agreed on boundaries. To the extreme, I'm sure we'd all trade the freedom to walk into anyone else's house in exchange for not allowing everyone to walk into ours. Heck, get a bunch of like-minded guys together to do some racing, and the first thing they will do is lay down the rules of what you can and can't do. I do not want the freedom to drive around the race track opposite the flow of traffic. The race clubs we belong to are governing bodies that make rules to limit everyone's freedom to go onto the race track, because everyone benefits by preventing the guy whose car is leaking oil from fouling up our track. Sure, sometimes the rules and politics will suck, and will come down against you, but on the whole we seem to like these groups.
Sure, that's a bit different from our country because no one is forcing you to go to the track and you have the option of which track governing body you associate yourself with. The basic premise still stands that the more people you get together, the greater the need for a governing group to balance everyone's competing needs. In the puking-oil example, the only person who really wants the freedom to "do whatever he wants" is the person who's wants harm the people around him.
I'm not saying your wants necessarily harm people. But it is impossible to make all of the people happy all of the time. At some point we have to compromise what we want because society says so. It doesn't even have to be a "for the greater good" thing. We benefit personally. I know that by not being allowed to power slide my car around public roads, in return I don't really have to worry about some jackass pushing my car off the road. I get more than I give up.
It's not perfect. It's not necessarily fair. There are things we could do to improve it. But, on the whole, our's is a pretty decent system that gets most things right.
You'll need to log in to post.
