|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 04/23/2010 : 08:01:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force: They will charge you for the products you use and force you to pay for them. While taxes are taken directly from your salary, they are a form of payment for goods provided, namely government. |
Nice try, but name one company that forces me to buy their product. The product or service companies provide is a negotiation. If I want their product then I have to decide whether to pay what they are asking for it. Not the same as taxes where I can be punished for not paying them.
Originally posted by tomk80
Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for: Because once you have build a road, you never have to maintain it. Oh, you do? Once you bought your car, you'll pay for the maintenance. You'll pay a yearly fee if you have bought a virus scanner, for making sure it will stay up to date. My central heating system comes with a maintenance contract. |
What I was driving at is that here in Texas we have toll roads that the money we pay for the tolls goes to other programs and not to maintain the road as was originally stated when the road was built.
Originally posted by tomk80
Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances: The government forcing ethical behavior is a bad thing? |
Corporations should be forced to operate legally, but should not be forced to meet standard above the law. I hope I am saying this right. I am not for unethical behavior, just when we talk about ethics above what the law requires then it becomes too subjective and no one knows what the rules are.
Originally posted by tomk80
For a number of your examples we'd have to go into the lobbying behavior of companies, which actually has quite some influence on your life. |
But that's the government being oppressive not the companies.
Originally posted by tomk80
There are quite a number of examples of corporations trying to limit free speech of their employees or about their products, where laws instituted by the government actually protect us from these corporations. That is why. |
Okay, the rights in the constitution such as free speech only protect us from the government. You can’t say the company you work for sucks to the press for example and then expect to not be fired. You are not protected from repercussions of what you say. You are protected that the government cannot suppress your free speech it is not extended to private companies.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 08:31:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
If you use services, whether they are the government's or a company's, you need to pay for them. If you take a company's product without paying for it, that's called "stealing" and you could get jail time. The government requires money to function as well. |
I am not against taxes. My point was to what the question was whether corporations or governments are more oppressive. The government can be more oppressive because they can tax you whatever they want and then punish you for not paying them. Corporation cannot do this.
Originally posted by Fripp
Roads need constant maintenance and therefore money. By your argument, why should I pay for MS Windows 7 becuase it's already paid for. |
My reason for this one was in Texas tolls collected do not go to the maintenance of the roads but to other programs that were not stated when they built the road.
| Originally posted by FrippSo you think that they can put as much as they want without regard for the health of the consumer? |
Yes, they are required to tell the consumer what and how much is in the product as it is now. Why don’t we put warning labels on salt shakers and containers?
Originally posted by Fripp
"Waaa, waaa, waaa. I can't smoke like a chimney! I'm being tyrannized!"
If someone next to me in a restaurant is smoking, not only do they ruin my meal, but they also affect my health and are infringing on my rights. |
Which right is that? Just go to another restaurant that does not allow smoking.
Originally posted by Fripp
Are you really prepared to say that corporations don't waste money frivolously? Please, get real.
|
No. I work for a company I see wasted money regularly. The difference is that when corporations spend money frivolously there are consequences not so with the government. What company could survive with the debt ratio the government has?
Originally posted by Fripp
So if your neighbor wants to build a porn shop, or an all-night go-kart race-track, or a toxic-waste dump site, you don't want the government to intervene? Before you say that I've gone too extreme, there was a story a few years ago of a western state that got rid of zoning codes and precisely these sorts of things started happening. |
That’s a zoning issue. I have no problem with zoning. I do have a problem with the city taking my money because I want to add an awning to my house. There was no administrative cause for it. I went down and filled out a paper and gave them a check. The person took the check and paper and gave me a permit. There was no investigation as to how that would affect my neighbors.
Originally posted by Fripp
Would you be OK if there was no electrical code and your child dies in a neighbor's house because of an electrical fire? How about building code that allows 2x4s as roof rafters and the roof collapses during a snow storm, killing your family? |
How is an awning going to kill my family?
Originally posted by Fripp
Corporations affect what cars we think we want, what movies to watch and what products are on those movies. Corporations market drugs directly to the consumer (we are the ONLY country that allows this BTW) and influences people to feel that they have "this syndrome" or "that syndrome" and only this wonder drug will fix what ails you. There is virtually nothing that corporations don't influence our thinking on. In fact, I would argue that corporations subtly, but insidiously, are more dangerous because people aren't aware they're being influenced (vs. being "forced"). |
You clearly have little regard for people. These are choices a free person makes every day and reaps the consequences. Nothing here states that corporations’ force you to do anything.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 08:40:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Nice try, but name one company that forces me to buy their product. The product or service companies provide is a negotiation. If I want their product then I have to decide whether to pay what they are asking for it. Not the same as taxes where I can be punished for not paying them. |
You are part of a society. You may not like that, but that's the way it is. And while no company may force you to buy their product, for many products you haven't exactly got a choice but to buy them. A company may not force you to buy food, but you'll need it anyway.
You pay taxes, but you gain in return. The government provides you with infrastructure, schooling, security and other services, services from which you benefit. Just as you cannot go without food, you cannot seclude yourself from society either. Unless Somalia is your ideal form of government?
Further down you seem to agree with government creating and upholding laws. In that case, it is hypocritical to object to the fact that government also needs to have money to provide this service to you, because you do in fact use those services. Don't like it? Move to Somalia.
| What I was driving at is that here in Texas we have toll roads that the money we pay for the tolls goes to other programs and not to maintain the road as was originally stated when the road was built. |
Which goes back to taxation. See above.
| Corporations should be forced to operate legally, but should not be forced to meet standard above the law. I hope I am saying this right. I am not for unethical behavior, just when we talk about ethics above what the law requires then it becomes too subjective and no one knows what the rules are. |
Not all laws are ethical, not all clearly unethical behavior is unlawful. The law is not an objective verification of ethical behavior as you portray it here.
The government can only enforce behavior according to the law. It can try to convince parties to act ethical in other ways, such as subsidies or agreements. Look at the products in the financial markets. A number of these products are new behaviors. Should government wait to tackle these behaviors until they are put in law? You do realize we make new laws, right? Or should government use other approaches as well? If we discover that gasses spilled from a company have a detrimental effect on the surroundings, should government wait until it is written into law that they should take action or should government take action in other ways possible.
Besides that, the FDA creating regulations on the ingredients allowed in products is a legal endavour. The FDA is tasked with creating and upholding food regulations by law. Food and drug companies are required to obey the regulations of the FDA by law.
| But that's the government being oppressive not the companies. |
It's the companies being oppressive through means of the government.
Okay, the rights in the constitution such as free speech only protect us from the government. You can’t say the company you work for sucks to the press for example and then expect to not be fired. You are not protected from repercussions of what you say. You are protected that the government cannot suppress your free speech it is not extended to private companies.
|
There are legal limits in how far a company can go to enforce behavior or opinions. Just because you work at a company, doesn't mean that all your behaviors and speech can be regulated by that company and companies have been known to go overboard with this. These excesses are what government protects you against. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 14:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
My reason for this one was in Texas tolls collected do not go to the maintenance of the roads but to other programs that were not stated when they built the road. |
Basically, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. All due to the actions of one state. I'm not saying that this isn't common practice. More, there needs to be more oversight on how taxes are spent and for politicians to be more ethical. But while I'm dreaming, I'd like to have a pony, too.
| Yes, they are required to tell the consumer what and how much is in the product as it is now. Why don’t we put warning labels on salt shakers and containers? |
I believe there are warning labels on consumer salt packages.
Which right is that? Just go to another restaurant that does not allow smoking.
|
What if I want that restaurant specifically? Why should one person's habit infringe on my enjoyment? If the roles were reversed, I would expect the same in return.
And the right is to my health, my choice NOT to smoke, and some stuff called Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
| What company could survive with the debt ratio the government has? I am not against taxes. My point was to what the question was whether corporations or governments are more oppressive. The government can be more oppressive because they can tax you whatever they want and then punish you for not paying them. Corporation cannot do this. |
Agreed. The US has way too high a debt ratio and I'm not against taxes per se. I don't like how and on what they are spent on. Other countries tax way more than we do. In fact, back in our "heyday", the top 1% (approx) were taxed at 88%. It's no coincidence that that is considered our Golden Era, the 1950s.
I think that we have a miscommunication about the word "oppressive". When I said "oppressive", I was most likely using it incorrectly. "Manipulative", "deceitful" and "influental in a detrimental way" are more in line with what I meant. My apologies.
In the same vein, I don't see how you can possibly term the corporate regulation of salt content to be "tyranny".
That’s a zoning issue. I have no problem with zoning. I do have a problem with the city taking my money because I want to add an awning to my house. There was no administrative cause for it. I went down and filled out a paper and gave them a check. The person took the check and paper and gave me a permit. There was no investigation as to how that would affect my neighbors.
How is an awning going to kill my family? |
That something specific to your township and I can't hazard to guess why they have that ordinance, except for aesthetic reasons. My township requires a permit to install a water heater, which I think is bullshit. In fact, my water heater just crapped out and I certainly wasn't going to wait for an inspector to come around.
But I certainly wouldn't classify any of these examples as "oppressive" or "tyrannical" even in the broadest sense of the word(s). And these pale in comparison to Mugabe or the Taliban.
You clearly have little regard for people. These are choices a free person makes every day and reaps the consequences. Nothing here states that corporations’ force you to do anything.
|
Yes, I absolutely do have little regard for people. As Frank Zappa said, "Stupidity is the foundation of our universe, not hydrogen. There is FAR more stupidity than there is hydrogen." I don't want do veer into a political discussion, but the fact that people chose to vote for W, not once, but TWICE; the fact that Rush Limbaugh can rail for years against drug addicts, then get caught himself taking enough Vicodin to kill an elephant, yet people still take him seriously; the fact that people stand in line for hours to listen to that brainless bimbo Palin; the fact that the financial collapse was a DIRECT result of 30 years of Republican-brand "laissez-faire" free market policies, yet people still think the Repubs have the best economic policy; the fact that W increased government spending to UNPRECEDENTED levels (as documented by the GAO), wiping out the surplusses amassed under Clinton, but "Joe Six-Pack" believes Fox News when it claims that Clinton started the Recession; the fact that people choose the molest children; the fact that people who think that marijuana is the devil's intoxicant, but think nothing of getting blotto from alcohol every weekend...
I could go on, but I merely used those examples as reasons why I don't trust people to make smart choices and why I hate the human race. I do NOT want to discuss those items--they are only an explanation for my worldview.
I agree that corps can't FORCE you to do anything. But I think they are far more dangerous because they can make you think you WANT or NEED something, that your life is incomplete without a consumer good. This is a far more insidious assault on our liberties: it is far harder to convince someone that something they believe is a right is actually detrimental to them, than it is for someone who knows something is wrong, yet they are forced to do it/buy it anyway. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 19:11:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
| Corporations do not waste my money on pork. |
A lot of CEOs, shareholders, and bankers take a lot more salary and bonuses than warranted from the corporations that sell you products for prices higher than they need to be. They are wasting money you have paid. |
Define warranted. Of course there are monopolized industries where we have no choice, but in others there are options to avoid a particular corporation or all corporations, though small companies may not be able to sell things as cheaply due to higher overhead as a proportion of production/etc costs. In those industries we aren't forced to buy from them.
| Corporations do not send our citizens to die in wars. |
No, republican governments does. |
Irrelevant. And Kennedy/Johnson.
| And before you object by saying that Clinton did too, let me remind you that USA is a charter member of UN, and UN requested military assistance in Balkan. (Scandinavian countries participated too). And while there _are_ Swedish troops in Afghanistan presently, they are there under UN flag. |
Did you justify military action because the UN requested it? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 19:21:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
| Which right is that? Just go to another restaurant that does not allow smoking. |
What if I want that restaurant specifically? Why should one person's habit infringe on my enjoyment? If the roles were reversed, I would expect the same in return.
And the right is to my health, my choice NOT to smoke, and some stuff called Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness |
Not necessarily on someone else's property. I mean I don't even have a right to free speech in a movie theater -- they can ask me to leave if I were being loud in the theater.
| I agree that corps can't FORCE you to do anything. But I think they are far more dangerous because they can make you think you WANT or NEED something, that your life is incomplete without a consumer good. |
How can they possibly do that if I'm being rational? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 19:36:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Robb
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force. |
No, but they gladly see you getting forced to pay for it. Gasoline for your car, electricity for your home. Your very way of life makes those two essential, and threatening to withdraw them is a kind of force. |
I do agree with you here Dr. Mabuse. Monopolized industries need to be regulated from my view.
| Corporations do not take property away for not paying property taxes. |
Banks and companies can have the court put your house on foreclosure if you can't pay them for services used, can't they? |
What would you have them do? Forgive anyone who doesn't pay them? How could they possibly operate?
| Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for. |
Don't you have roads with toll-booths where you pay to use the roads owned by corporations? |
State government keeps it for non-road related expenses usually.
| Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances. |
Yes they do. They can threat the government with lawsuits if it is found that the government unethically favours the business of one company and not another. |
What's wrong with that? Either side forcing the other to be ethical seems positive.
| Corporations do not tell me how much salt can be in a product I buy. |
No, they would rather not tell you they have an excessive amount of salt in it at all. The less you know about it, the better off they would be since you'd be in the dark about what they add to the food. |
It's legally required to be written on the package.
| Corporations do not tell me I cannot smoke in a private restaurant or bar. |
The bar or restaurant can tell you not to smoke in their establishment. |
They can't tell every bar or restaurant in existence to also ban it, only their own. Not even sure where I stand on this one, but it's not really analogous.
| Corporations do not spend more of my money than they earn. |
Of course they do. They charge you more than they have to when they sell you stuff, because they are operating for profit. Then give that money to shareholders. |
Only a problem in monopolized industries, otherwise, I don't have to buy it.
| Corporations do not tell me I need topay for a permit to put an awning on my house. |
Though I own my apartment, I need to have my condominium board's permit to put one up. |
If you agreed to the condominium board's rules when you bought the place, so what?
I would be open to some government regulations on how communities may establish condominium boards. Don't particularly like contracts that would require you to submit to a yet-to-be-formed community governance body. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 19:37:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
I believe there are warning labels on consumer salt packages. |
I just looked and on my Morton salt package there is not one. But that's only one package and maybe in New York they are required.
Originally posted by Fripp
What if I want that restaurant specifically? Why should one person's habit infringe on my enjoyment? If the roles were reversed, I would expect the same in return.
And the right is to my health, my choice NOT to smoke, and some stuff called Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
|
Where is this right given to us in the constitution? Just like you say I can choose to salt my food, you can go somewhere else. You are also not entitled to the golden rule. It may be rude but it should be left up to the owner to determine if he/she wants a legal product in their restaurant.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not in the constitution that our laws are supposed to be based on.
I am not against taxes for services we need but I am against too many taxes and wasted money on fraud. Also, one exampel is the Dallas ISD can not tell us where nore than 12 million dollars has gone. These kind f things need to be fixed before we should give them more of our money.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 20:14:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Not necessarily on someone else's property. I mean I don't even have a right to free speech in a movie theater -- they can ask me to leave if I were being loud in the theater.
|
That's the exact same thing. If someone is talking too loud, they'll ruin my enjoyment of the movie and if someone is smoking next to me in a restaurant, they ruin my enjoyment of the meal. In a mild way they are infringing on me by them doing what they want at the expense of me. Me watching the movie does not impact them. Me eating my meal does not impact them. By the way, we both paid to watch the movie. If they wanted to talk loud, they shouldn't have gone to the movies. And every theater I've been to has trailers telling people to silence their cel phones and refrain from talking. I don't know how much more clear it has to be. Do you still feel you have the right to talk loud during a movie and disturb me? Me silently watching a movie that we both paid to see doesn't impinge on you.
One other thing, talking isn't a health concern. Second-hand smoke is.
How can they possibly do that if I'm being rational?
|
It's called Advertising. Apple is a master of making you desire something that, yesterday, you didn't even know existed. How many schlubby, overweight guys believe that they, too, can score super-model caliber women if they only drink Coors? How many suburban housewives take their SUVs off-road? How many men not only need a truck, they need a truck with oversized, worthless duallies on the rear wheels; with ten cylinder motors that get 5 mpg and can tow a freight train loaded with coal up Mt McKinley? How many people buy Ferraris yet they end up driving 5 mph on stop-and-start traffic? My $30 Timex tells the same time as someone's $500 rolex. If my Timex dies, I by a new one. A Rolex probably costs nearly $500 to repair also.
And humans aren't rational. Humans are capable of fleeting moments of rationality, but by-and-large are not rational. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 20:24:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
If you agreed to the condominium board's rules when you bought the place, so what? |
And if you agree to your locality's, town's, city's, county's, state's or country's laws and form of governance, so what? There are other places to live.
We have a locality near here where every aspect of how buildings and homes look from the outside is controlled by an entity called the "Design Review Board." The DRB specifies what color and type of siding you can have on your house, the style and height of fencing, and even demands plans from a certified architect if you want to install a dog house in your own yard. Anyone who buys property in this place has to agree to these rules because of the master deed which covers every inch of land.
Bordering that locality is a town in which people have pink or lime-green houses with one or more rusting cars in the front yard. So it's not like there isn't a boatload of choice available in the sort of regulations one can live under.
Whether Mab has to move to a different set of condos to be able to put up an awning without anyone's permission, or someone else has to move to a whole different state to escape a factory's toxic exhaust is a difference of scale, not of type, of inconvenience.| I would be open to some government regulations on how communities may establish condominium boards. Don't particularly like contracts that would require you to submit to a yet-to-be-formed community governance body. |
But that's irrelevant to the real problem, from a libertarian point-of-view, which is that every home-owner's association or condo board is capable of being overrun by a group who can pass draconian new rules over any minority's objections after you've moved in. Nobody, at closing, gets to say, "I agree to these condo rules and only these condo rules." Like the Federal Constitution, the governing documents one agrees to when moving into a managed neighborhood include procedures for changing the rules. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 20:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I just looked and on my Morton salt package there is not one. But that's only one package and maybe in New York they are required. |
Nope there isn't. But someone knows EXACTLY what they're getting in a salt container. Someone on a low-sodium diet needs to know exactly how much salt is in foods. That's ALL this regulation AIMED AT COMPANIES is trying to do.
Where is this right given to us in the constitution? Just like you say I can choose to salt my food, you can go somewhere else. You are also not entitled to the golden rule. It may be rude but it should be left up to the owner to determine if he/she wants a legal product in their restaurant. |
How is you salting your food affecting me? Besides, this regulation wouldn't pertain to you. IT APPLIES TO BUSINESSES AND ONLY BUSINESSES. And Where is the right for businesses to do whatever they want, to put as much salt (or anything else) as they want; where is that given to businesses in the Constitution? Where is any rights whatsoever given to businesses in the Constitution?
Are you saying that if it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution, or states' laws, then people are free to do whatever
they feel like doing? What you're describing is barely contained anarchy.
And, again, how is the REGULATION of companies and their salt practices, how is that TYRANNY?
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 21:02:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Where is this right given to us in the constitution? |
This is the second time you've made this mistake. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. And I'd suggest you re-read the 9th Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Every right you can imagine belongs to the people. Those listed in the Constitution and its Amendments are guaranteed in that a citizen can bring the enforcement power of the government down on someone who is denying one of those rights.
Unfortunately for Fripp, the government simply cannot guarantee anyone a "right to health," since the government will never have the power to cure all diseases. We can't even guarantee a "right to be free from obvious health hazards," at least not without mandating the use of sunscreen or spending trillions to hand out free "moon suits" to every citizen.
However, cigarette smoke is a punch to the nose. Without state or local laws banning smoking in restaurants, Fripp has to assume that every establishment allows smoking, and look for one of a very few that advertise being smoke-free. One slip-up, and Fripp may find himself punched in the nose by someone's cigarette, even though he'd tried to avoid it.| Just like you say I can choose to salt my food, you can go somewhere else. You are also not entitled to the golden rule. It may be rude but it should be left up to the owner to determine if he/she wants a legal product in their restaurant. |
Again: a legal product which is a public health hazard.
Would it be okay for me to find an ignorant restaurant owner who gives me the okay to mix perfectly legal bleach and ammonia in a big bucket?| Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not in the constitution that our laws are supposed to be based on. |
No, they're in the Declaration of Independence which, while not defining our governance, does set the tone for it and has been legally "linked" to the Constitution by our courts, in that the Declaration of Independence can't simply be ignored when interpreting the law of the land. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 21:10:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
This is the second time you've made this mistake. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. And I'd suggest you re-read the 9th Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Every right you can imagine belongs to the people. Those listed in the Constitution and its Amendments are guaranteed in that a citizen can bring the enforcement power of the government down on someone who is denying one of those rights.
|
Thanks, Dave. I thought that I would be splitting hairs with the 9th Amendment, but you stated it much better than I could have anyway.
And I was going to bring up the Declaration but I didn't know how much "pull" it had on our laws and liberties. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 21:32:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
And I was going to bring up the Declaration but I didn't know how much "pull" it had on our laws and liberties. |
Well, from my understanding, the "life" and "liberty" parts are pretty-well defined in the Constitution itself, even without it referencing the Declaration. It's the "pursuit of happiness" one that's a bit sticky, as people keep filing frivolous lawsuits on the basis that they're not happy, and the courts have to keep telling them that happiness itself is nowhere guaranteed, they only have a right to try to find it.
I should have bookmarked the page I read a few months ago about the legal status of the DoI. The gist was that while the Constitution is much more important, the DoI cannot be ignored. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2010 : 00:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
That's the exact same thing. If someone is talking too loud, they'll ruin my enjoyment of the movie and if someone is smoking next to me in a restaurant, they ruin my enjoyment of the meal. In a mild way they are infringing on me by them doing what they want at the expense of me. Me watching the movie does not impact them. Me eating my meal does not impact them. |
You couldn't ask me to leave (or at least I could ignore you), only the theater could ask me to leave. They wouldn't do it for reverence of your entertainment, they would do it so that I don't give other customers bad experiences and discouraging them from returning. I think only the health issue is a valid complaint for smoking. I did say that I'm not entirely sure where I stand, the health issue alone pushes me toward acceptance.
How can they possibly do that if I'm being rational?
|
It's called Advertising. Apple is a master of making you desire something that, yesterday, you didn't even know existed. How many schlubby, overweight guys believe that they, too, can score super-model caliber women if they only drink Coors? How many suburban housewives take their SUVs off-road? How many men not only need a truck, they need a truck with oversized, worthless duallies on the rear wheels; with ten cylinder motors that get 5 mpg and can tow a freight train loaded with coal up Mt McKinley? How many people buy Ferraris yet they end up driving 5 mph on stop-and-start traffic? My $30 Timex tells the same time as someone's $500 rolex. If my Timex dies, I by a new one. A Rolex probably costs nearly $500 to repair also. |
Fostering desire does not equal coercion. I don't have to do anything based on advertising. Sometimes I do, but only after I run it through my filter of "Can I afford this? Do I really want this?"
| And humans aren't rational. Humans are capable of fleeting moments of rationality, but by-and-large are not rational. |
I think we're capable. I think to assume we are not is dehumanizing in a way. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/24/2010 00:28:50 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
