[worry]

Well, in terms of the helmet and safety belt laws, stuff like that...the argument for protecting people from themselves isn't even necessary. There is a public interest in keeping public roadways clear of dead/dying/heavily injured people as well as the emergency vehicles/personnel/road closures that are involved. Morons have every right to be morons, but not at the expense of everybody else who collectively support the roadway and emergency facilities. The reasoning isn't very far removed from litter laws, and it's equally legitimate.

[Aptorian]

I don't mean to derail the thread but I just wanted to reply to Shiaras post.

Shinrei, on 14 April 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

That's just it Apt, you give you attitude away in every post you make - you wouldn't care if someone gave you proof definative proof that America can't tax their way out of their problems, your only concern is "fuck the rich".

If you really want to argue with the point of that article, come up with some facts please. It's very easy to dismiss something you disagree with as 'propaganda'. Lazy.

FUCK FACTS I AM ANGRY!!! RAAAARRRRHHH!!!...

... well, okay... since you ask so nicely.

The reason why that article got me up in such a huff is not the debate about what should or should not be taxed. To me this isn't about what is the best way of taxing your way out of a financial crisis.

It is the martyric (is that a word? Well it is now) stance that "the leftists" just want to take everything from the Right that they have worked so hard for and leave them with nothing. It is the blatant skewing of numbers that irks me. To the writer it seems like it is all or nothing. Every dollar he has to pay extra is like raping and killing one of his kids.

I don't want to punish the rich people I just want them own up to a responsibility to the society they are a part of. I'm very idealistic when it comes to money and power. I live in a socialist country with a tax roof that goes as high as 70% in some extreme cases. I believe that everyone should contribute what they can to the community and the society they are a part of. This doubly so for the rich and powerful. Call it social responsibility and economic sensibility. The mighty should carry the weak.

America is crumbling beneath an ever increasing burden of debt. I heard in the news today that the US is the Western Nation with the fastest growing debt. So why the hell wouldn't you get the money where you can? I'm not saying that the Government should make like Nero of Rome and just seize all the money they want, I am saying that they people who have grown fat off the people and the favorable tax system, should give back in a time of need. And America really fucking needs. What is the tax bracket for +250,000 right now? 33 % make it 43%! Or even 53%! Not just for the rich though. Everyone has to chip in. Raise it all over the board. Welcome to socialist Scandinavia! Okay, I admit that probably wouldn't work since the economic infrastructure is not balanced for that kind of tax hike over night but you get my point.

From the view of an outsider it seems that America remains drunk on the notion of the beautiful American dream and the idea that capitalism in its purest form is the only right way to run the society. Every man for himself. The only measure of true success is wealth. The more money you have the better you are. Paying just one dollar to the state is robbery. Using tax dollars on things like free healthcare and education is terrorism. Why on earth should you share your wealth and help the little guy get a chance.

When capitalism takes that shape it disgusts me to no end. And it makes me angry when I see people bashing taxes just because they don't want to share. Capitalism helped build the western world and if we continue down this road I am dead certain that it will also lead to our downfall.

But then again, I sincerely doubt that America is going to get far by raising taxes. Now cutting military spending though...

[worry]

Actually, America would get pretty far by simply letting the Bush tax cuts lapse. Not quite enough for a surplus, but near enough there that the tweaks necessary would not be remotely so out of reach as it seems now. And of course in the long term, defense, medicare, and social security spending all have to be reformed (and Shin is right, borrowing from those funds to pay for other stuff isn't really kosher) -- but eliminating them/privatizing them (same difference) isn't the answer for any of them.

Tax hikes -- esp. for the wealthy 250K+ mentioned before -- isn't the only good idea, but it IS a good idea. Closing tax loopholes so that existing taxes that should be paid but aren't would also go a long way to helping the deficit.

Also, humanely executing a randomly selected 10% of baby boomers should also be kept on the table.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 16 April 2011 - 04:45 AM

[Shinrei]

worrywort, on 15 April 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

Well, in terms of the helmet and safety belt laws, stuff like that...the argument for protecting people from themselves isn't even necessary. There is a public interest in keeping public roadways clear of dead/dying/heavily injured people as well as the emergency vehicles/personnel/road closures that are involved. Morons have every right to be morons, but not at the expense of everybody else who collectively support the roadway and emergency facilities. The reasoning isn't very far removed from litter laws, and it's equally legitimate.

I know it's the slippery slope argument that HD doesn't like, but we might as well ban motorcycles then, because even WITH a helmet, motorcycle accidents still happen with alarming frequency. So if your argument is really about

Quote

"public interest in keeping public roadways clear of dead/dying/heavily injured people as well as the emergency vehicles/personnel/road closures that are involved"

frankly having a helmet or not doesn't change the 'public nuisance'.

[worry]

Yes it does. Cleaning up splattered brains takes longer and costs more than not having to clean up splattered brains, and it's a lot grosser and more distracting (and therefore more dangerous) to see splattered brains on the freeway.

And I have no familiarity with HD's stance on slippery slopes, but I'd agree with anyone who resents them. They are cynical nonsense that deny human agency, reason, and intelligence. The best way to curtail bad law is to demand clear precise language; defy vague or obfuscatory language, don't just throw your hands up in the air and scrap a good idea because opportunists are trying to get their hands all over it. Good law, as much as possible -- nothing's perfect -- eliminates slippery slope reasoning.

[Shinrei]

That sounds reasonable and I'd like to believe it to be true, but if we go back to the example of cigarettes, don't we already see a slippery slope happening?

First advertising on TV vanned. Then banned in magazines. Then warnings placed on the packages. Smoking banned on flights. Smoking banned in restaurants. Then banned in bars as well. Smoking in public regulated to specific places. And now brandname elimination in favor of nasty pictures.


To me, "slippery slope" means escalation based on precedent which certainly looks to be the case here.

[D'rek]

worrywort, on 16 April 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

Yes it does. Cleaning up splattered brains takes longer and costs more than not having to clean up splattered brains, and it's a lot grosser and more distracting (and therefore more dangerous) to see splattered brains on the freeway.

Good point. Overweight people have more body mass to splatter on the road, which is grosser and takes up more time to clean, so obese people are no longer allowed to drive... and on and on it goes...

[Illuyankas]

Your last example is slightly ruined by the fact that forcing fat people to walk everywhere would actually be beneficial for them.

[worry]

D, on 17 April 2011 - 03:17 AM, said:

worrywort, on 16 April 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

Yes it does. Cleaning up splattered brains takes longer and costs more than not having to clean up splattered brains, and it's a lot grosser and more distracting (and therefore more dangerous) to see splattered brains on the freeway.

Good point. Overweight people have more body mass to splatter on the road, which is grosser and takes up more time to clean, so obese people are no longer allowed to drive... and on and on it goes...

No it doesn't, since laws can be reasonable and specific.

Also, nicotine is a drug, and drugs are regulated by the government. Including legal drugs like nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine. That is the precedent at issue here. I'm not saying it's right or wrong (okay, I am: regulation is generally good, criminalization is generally bad, but good intentions don't necessarily lead to good lawmaking), I'm just saying that people have already ceded power over drugs to their governments. So what governments force upon the nicotine industry doesn't necessarily slip down any slopes towards other industries, since they're already a special class with special laws.

[Silencer]

worrywort, on 17 April 2011 - 06:58 AM, said:

D, on 17 April 2011 - 03:17 AM, said:

worrywort, on 16 April 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

Yes it does. Cleaning up splattered brains takes longer and costs more than not having to clean up splattered brains, and it's a lot grosser and more distracting (and therefore more dangerous) to see splattered brains on the freeway.

Good point. Overweight people have more body mass to splatter on the road, which is grosser and takes up more time to clean, so obese people are no longer allowed to drive... and on and on it goes...

No it doesn't, since laws can be reasonable and specific.

Also, nicotine is a drug, and drugs are regulated by the government. Including legal drugs like nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine. That is the precedent at issue here. I'm not saying it's right or wrong (okay, I am: regulation is generally good, criminalization is generally bad, but good intentions don't necessarily lead to good lawmaking), I'm just saying that people have already ceded power over drugs to their governments. So what governments force upon the nicotine industry doesn't necessarily slip down any slopes towards other industries, since they're already a special class with special laws.

Had a post about slippery slope arguments, but my 'net went down, so lost it.

Anyway: governments also already have control over driving (licensing, speed limits, helmet regulations, etc, etc), video games (ratings boards) and television (broadcasting standards enforcements), electricity supply (taxes, government-owned lines). Almost every industry has some amount of government oversight which can be used to either be a positive restriction on undesirable levels/content/consumption or a negative TOTAL CONTROL WE OWN YOU kind of deal. So your argument about the industries doesn't stand, I think...

[Mentalist]

depends on the country.
once again, in Canada, tehre are multiple reasons why such laws are hard to pass.

Each example you give is linked to specific provisions in the country's constitution. that's what limits what the government can do, really.

[worry]

I did not realize the governments rated video games in Australia and New Zealand, as in the US it's voluntary within the industry like the movie ratings. It takes a special kind of tyranny to go that far, I agree.

[Silencer]

Mentalist, on 17 April 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

depends on the country.
once again, in Canada, tehre are multiple reasons why such laws are hard to pass.

Each example you give is linked to specific provisions in the country's constitution. that's what limits what the government can do, really.

Yup, but of course the wording in these situations is often so vague and out-of-date that there's really only a generally line in the sand. Specific cases are able to be bent back and forth as you please as long as they don't cross that line. In the end, what it comes down to, is public reaction. If there are plenty of people who disagree with what a government is doing, it won't happen - there'll be revolts and whatnot first. But if they do it all stealth-like (which seems to be the current trend), people simply don't notice until it's done...
Anyway, minor paranoia aside (NZ managed to get the anti-piracy legislation delayed to hell because of public dissent...they're just bringing it back in now, and people are once again rallying to hate on it ), it does give a certain legitimacy to concerns over sliding down slopes in this area, certainly in the country in question, and potentially elsewhere...

worrywort, on 17 April 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

I did not realize the governments rated video games in Australia and New Zealand, as in the US it's voluntary within the industry like the movie ratings. It takes a special kind of tyranny to go that far, I agree.

It isn't so much that governments rate the games, it's that there is legislation which states that an unrated game may not be sold in the country - so the ratings are necessary, even though they aren't (technically) legally required. *sigh* That's Australia, at least. Not sure what the deal is here, as our ratings board seems to be much more sensible (what with having a R18 rating, and not banning games left, right and center all the time...).
Despite that, I think the issue holds in the states and elsewhere as well - the ESRB for the US and Canada rates pretty much all the games released commercially, it's more a force of habit now than anything. And plenty of retailers refuse to sell games that aren't rated (as far as I'm aware), which basically makes it the same thing, just without government oversight. Doesn't mean they couldn't quietly get that oversight, eventually, but for now you lot are lucky.
In any case, I redirect your attention to the other issues I mentioned. It all comes back to the fact that they *could*, not that they necessarily will or won't - alcohol is definitely going to be lined up for the next smear campaign, though. Can't see the government not going after that. Hell, you should see all the complaining down here on the news about alcohol/binge drinking 'culture'. It's gonna go, eventually. The states, however, has the precedent of prohibition to fall back on if that ever happened over there, I guess.

[Mentalist]

Silencer, on 17 April 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 17 April 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

depends on the country.
once again, in Canada, tehre are multiple reasons why such laws are hard to pass.

Each example you give is linked to specific provisions in the country's constitution. that's what limits what the government can do, really.

Yup, but of course the wording in these situations is often so vague and out-of-date that there's really only a generally line in the sand. Specific cases are able to be bent back and forth as you please as long as they don't cross that line. In the end, what it comes down to, is public reaction. If there are plenty of people who disagree with what a government is doing, it won't happen - there'll be revolts and whatnot first. But if they do it all stealth-like (which seems to be the current trend), people simply don't notice until it's done...
Anyway, minor paranoia aside (NZ managed to get the anti-piracy legislation delayed to hell because of public dissent...they're just bringing it back in now, and people are once again rallying to hate on it ), it does give a certain legitimacy to concerns over sliding down slopes in this area, certainly in the country in question, and potentially elsewhere...

worrywort, on 17 April 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

I did not realize the governments rated video games in Australia and New Zealand, as in the US it's voluntary within the industry like the movie ratings. It takes a special kind of tyranny to go that far, I agree.

It isn't so much that governments rate the games, it's that there is legislation which states that an unrated game may not be sold in the country - so the ratings are necessary, even though they aren't (technically) legally required. *sigh* That's Australia, at least. Not sure what the deal is here, as our ratings board seems to be much more sensible (what with having a R18 rating, and not banning games left, right and center all the time...).
Despite that, I think the issue holds in the states and elsewhere as well - the ESRB for the US and Canada rates pretty much all the games released commercially, it's more a force of habit now than anything. And plenty of retailers refuse to sell games that aren't rated (as far as I'm aware), which basically makes it the same thing, just without government oversight. Doesn't mean they couldn't quietly get that oversight, eventually, but for now you lot are lucky.
In any case, I redirect your attention to the other issues I mentioned. It all comes back to the fact that they *could*, not that they necessarily will or won't - alcohol is definitely going to be lined up for the next smear campaign, though. Can't see the government not going after that. Hell, you should see all the complaining down here on the news about alcohol/binge drinking 'culture'. It's gonna go, eventually. The states, however, has the precedent of prohibition to fall back on if that ever happened over there, I guess.

I doubt that'll happen. Alcohol is too much of a cash cow to any government in a country with a drinking culture.

[McLovin]

Silencer, on 17 April 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

The states, however, has the precedent of prohibition to fall back on if that ever happened over there, I guess.

And that worked out soooooooo well for us, we had to repeal it.

[Gothos]

Yeah, it worked so awesome.......

In alcohol's case, I really can't see any successful attempts at banning the cornerstone of civilization in the forseeable future.
As for banning cigarettes... well. It's possibly coming in the EU in 2025. We'll see how that goes.


As for USA's economy problems, they won't be solved as long as the financial sector is the largest sector of their economy. Conjuring up empty money won't save anyone; either capitalism's progress has to stop/revert, or you have to find new lands to rob of their resources. Never mind large bank accounts and loans and whatnot, ask enough "where did that come from, then?" questions and you're back in the hard ground with it's resources and crops.

[Shiara]

Update: Big tobacco threatens to slash cigarette prices

[Aptorian]

Wow that actually made me a bit angry.

The idea of lowering your prices because you're afraid you'll lose profits is amusing, but the whole idea of the cigarette company(ies) fighting the government in this way to negate the attempt to dissuade kids from starting smoking is... annoying to say the least.

Can't wait till Tobacco companies are dead and gone in the West in another decade or two.

[Gothos]

Just another branch we'd be giving away to China, then? Yeah, awesome.

[Shinrei]

Battle Plaptypus, on 17 May 2011 - 06:59 AM, said:

Wow that actually made me a bit angry.

The idea of lowering your prices because you're afraid you'll lose profits is amusing, but the whole idea of the cigarette company(ies) fighting the government in this way to negate the attempt to dissuade kids from starting smoking is... annoying to say the least.

Can't wait till Tobacco companies are dead and gone in the West in another decade or two.

Can't say I'd be sorry to see tobacco go, but won't it just become another illegal substance that people buy from shady dealers then? At least this way, the government gets a tax and doesn't have to declare a "War on Smoking" at which to throw tax dollars.