KRC Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 The inefficiency I described goes far beyond the effort of changing jobs. You may also need to change cities, to uproot your family, to have your spouse change jobs, to leave your friends behind, to have your kids switch to a new school . . . well, you get the point. Life's tough. Deal with it. Someone might go through all that to avoid being buried in a coal mine. Fear mongering aside, coal mining is a dangerous job. So is police officer or firefighter. You sign up for a dangerous job, you are expected to deal with danger. It is part of the job description. But let's say you were a coal mine owner who didn't want to install reasonable safety measures. You could simply advertise in the help wanted sections of out-of-town newspapers. People ignorant of your abysmal safety record would sign up for the higher pay. Here is a thought...How about doing research on a company before signing on with them? That is what everyone else does. Laziness is no excuse. The problems I described in the first paragraph prevent people from putting real pressure on their employers with respect to anything but the most dire workplace circumstances. But as I illustrated in the second paragraph, an employer can exploit information asymmetries to avoid eliminating these dire circumstances. 733876[/snapback] The problems described are all things that can be overcome. Again, nothing you described cannot be solved by personal responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Are you really this much of a fool, or just a blind, self centered hypocrite? I truly am sorry, but I can't think of a way to be nice about this. Talking loud to get your thunder back I see. You ask how I can favor banning secondhand smoke in public places such as bars without also wanting a ban on alcohol. I agree with you the world would be better off without alcohol. The harm it does in terms of drunk driving, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, spousal abuse, alcoholism, etc. more than makes up for whatever good it might do. But however much I may favor a ban on alcohol personally, proposing such a ban on a football board didn't seem like the surest path to agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Life's tough. Deal with it.Fear mongering aside, coal mining is a dangerous job. So is police officer or firefighter. You sign up for a dangerous job, you are expected to deal with danger. It is part of the job description. Here is a thought...How about doing research on a company before signing on with them? That is what everyone else does. Laziness is no excuse. The problems described are all things that can be overcome. Again, nothing you described cannot be solved by personal responsibility. 733888[/snapback] Yes, coal mining is a dangerous job. Typically the pay is much higher in dangerous jobs, to compensate people for the danger. My concern for that specific coal mining job is that employees were being subjected to a far greater level of danger than was standard for the industry, and that they were neither aware of, nor being compensated for, this extra danger. Obviously, it's in people's interests to do research about the companies they intend to work for. But I'm guessing the average coal miner doesn't know how to do thorough research about a company he intended to work for. Well, you say, all he has to do is to go on Google and do a search. But if the company is smart, they'll create a fully owned media subsidiary, which would basically be one guy typing things out on his computer. He'd write a number of glowing articles about this company, and then he'd contract with some web developer to use linking to get this corporate propaganda to appear near the top of the Google search results. Larger companies wouldn't have to go through this. If you buy full page ads in Newsweek on a regular basis, there's a pretty good chance Newsweek's coverage of you will be favorable. Personal responsibility is important, but it's not some magic wand capable of making the effects of market inefficiencies and information asymmetries disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 But however much I may favor a ban on alcohol personally, proposing such a ban on a football board didn't seem like the surest path to agreement. 733894[/snapback] Wets finger to test the wind Follower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 You say the racism analogy doesn't apply, because the racism thing is about people being banned. But say a restaurant chose to not serve children; or suppose it chose to only serve couples, or only celebrities. These things should be legal, even though it's a restaurant refusing to serve someone. Having established the general principle that it's okay for a restaurant owner to decide to ban certain types of people, the question becomes whether said owner has the right to ban them because of race. If the restaurant owner doesn't get to decide his or her own racial policy, why should the owner have the right to ignore a reasonable standard of public health? 733859[/snapback] Again: It depends on your definition of reasonable. Its not a reasonable standard. Hell, based on your argument, why should the restaurant owner decide who gets to eat in his/her restaurant ever? Why not let the government decide everything? As long as its "reasonable", whats the harm, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 But however much I may favor a ban on alcohol personally, proposing such a ban on a football board didn't seem like the surest path to agreement. 733894[/snapback] This says everything. If the government decides that negatives outweigh the positives for society, go ahead and ban it. Sounds like China to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Again: It depends on your definition of reasonable. Its not a reasonable standard. Hell, based on your argument, why should the restaurant owner decide who gets to eat in his/her restaurant ever? Why not let the government decide everything? As long as its "reasonable", whats the harm, right? 733935[/snapback] As the health effects of secondhand smoke become better understood, it becomes increasingly unreasonable to ask people to be subjected to these effects simply to eat a meal in a restaurant. The second part of your post isn't very convincing. I've already stated restaurant owners should be allowed to exclude children, non-couples, and non-celebrities if they so choose. I don't want the government to decide everything. I just want restaurants to be required to have a high standard of public health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 This says everything. If the government decides that negatives outweigh the positives for society, go ahead and ban it. Sounds like China to me. And it sounds like Ronald Reagan's drug war to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 As the health effects of secondhand smoke become better understood, it becomes increasingly unreasonable to ask people to be subjected to these effects simply to eat a meal in a restaurant. But you're not being forced to and neither is anyone else. You don't have to eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed. Go to a restaurant where it isn't or there are seperate sections. Too bad, so sad that the restaurant you go to isn't perfect for you. Go to a different one then. What you ARE asking is that other people be subjected to your rules/guidelines when you feel that it benefits you. The second part of your post isn't very convincing. I've already stated restaurant owners should be allowed to exclude children, non-couples, and non-celebrities if they so choose. I don't want the government to decide everything. I just want restaurants to be required to have a high standard of public health. 733952[/snapback] Only when you feel like they should then, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 And it sounds like Ronald Reagan's drug war to me. 733954[/snapback] Which I also take issue with, but thats another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 To say that the prisons of today are a liberal's dream is a load of crap. A true liberal would seek to make them into institutions that could actually rehabilitate these creeps (which is probably impossible in many cases). Prisons are in actuality nothing more than warehouses for people we want to keep away from society and if they weren't given just enough leeway to commit crimes on the inside they're be out of control. That would mean there would have to be a much higher ratio of guards to prisoners, or that each prisoner would have to be in 23-hour per day lockdown or chained up somehow. We're too busy throwing money away on phony wars and Halliburton to pay for more guards and chaining people up conflicts with our smug self-image of somehow being any better than the rest of the world. 733819[/snapback] The only one delusion here is you - as usual. When I stated "Liberal Utopia" I was referring to the government (guards) being the only ones with guns. I apologize for leaving you to your own imagination to put 2+2 together. I should have known you libs would answer "peanut butter." There are a significantly higher ratio of guards to inmates than there are of policemen to citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Talking loud to get your thunder back I see. You ask how I can favor banning secondhand smoke in public places such as bars without also wanting a ban on alcohol. I agree with you the world would be better off without alcohol. The harm it does in terms of drunk driving, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, spousal abuse, alcoholism, etc. more than makes up for whatever good it might do. But however much I may favor a ban on alcohol personally, proposing such a ban on a football board didn't seem like the surest path to agreement. 733894[/snapback] Yeah, because in the history of the world a government banning something makes everything better. Perhaps you should look up "Prohibition." Apparently America already tried banning alcohol. Is there anything else you thing you should Lord over? How about fast food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Talking loud to get your thunder back I see. You ask how I can favor banning secondhand smoke in public places such as bars without also wanting a ban on alcohol. I agree with you the world would be better off without alcohol. The harm it does in terms of drunk driving, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, spousal abuse, alcoholism, etc. more than makes up for whatever good it might do. But however much I may favor a ban on alcohol personally, proposing such a ban on a football board didn't seem like the surest path to agreement. 733894[/snapback] Sorry once again. I shouldn't have been so rude. I should be able to understand your position I suppose, but I simply cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Sorry once again. I shouldn't have been so rude. I should be able to understand your position I suppose, but I simply cannot. 734009[/snapback] Try putting your head up your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 He might be plotting with adam to stop global warming by sabotaging solar stations. 733838[/snapback] Nah, Bill at least has a valid point to make. I might think he's wrong more than not, but he makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Yeah, because in the history of the world a government banning something makes everything better. You've convinced me. Government bans are bad. Let's put lead back into gasoline. While we're at it, let's get rid of the government ban on slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Try putting your head up your ass. 734027[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Sorry once again. I shouldn't have been so rude. I should be able to understand your position I suppose, but I simply cannot. 734009[/snapback] This was a classy post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Try putting your head up your ass. 734027[/snapback] This wasn't a classy post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Try putting your head up your ass. 734027[/snapback] I want to come back to this comment now that I've had the chance to think about it. I wondered what it would be like to follow your advice in a literal sense. Granted, I'd need a much more flexible spine and a much larger rectum. What if I had these things, and what if I succeeded--literally--in following your advice? With a small flashlight clenched between my teeth, I'd be able to examine a part of my body I've never seen before. But this is reality, and most people will never have that kind of a view. The closest they'll ever come is to witness the end result of a liberal social program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts