RussK
-
Posts
458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RussK
-
-
I'm actually about to go recycle some cardboard and plastics fairly soon. There is a local, government placed dumpster that I use down the road. For one, I save a lot of trash space by recycling. Furthermore, that government waste is going to be there in that parking lot no matter what I do, so I might as well use what I pay for.
-
If she looses her citizenship, can we take her to a 'secret' prison and interrogate her to get the names of everyone in that student group she is representing? Oh, that's right, we don't do that any more...
In regards to the scarf, at least she's wearing it with purpose instead of for some fashion statement as is popular now. -
Of course it can be, in theory (and even in practice, on rare occasion). I am assuming by risk you mean the probability of the occurrence of an accident that harms others or their property. But saying that it isn't impossible is one thing, saying that it should be done, by the government, to me, is another. If you're saying that it should be done, you should know and specify how it should be done, first. Then I'll know exactly what is being done, and have an informed opinion on it.
I don't know what exactly should be done to mitigate the risks of the oils spills; I'm not an expert in such things. However, if they planned on using steel boxes to contain the leaks, they should have already been built. If they were going to use floating oil booms--which seem more suited for lakes than oceans--then they should have already been on hand, instead of having to go and purchase them from dealers and governments all around the world, days later. There is precedence to this rig malfunction, which has been brought up on this thread already, and hopefully the powers involved will actually choose to learn something from the Deepwater Horizon event.
The premise behind my position (which I am still contemplating) is that certain activities, while outside the realm of typical physical violence, still constitute a clear threat to rights and property, and must be regulated. The concept of individual rights and non-initiation of force is still being used and applied; however, it's not being applied in the libertarian sense of an out of context absolute. Additionally, I'm applying the same idea used in regards to objective pollution control: that pollution does exist, affects individuals and property, yet is not outlawed because of the necessity industry is to how we live our lives.
The overall cost of the Deepwater Horizon spill won't be known for some time. Hopefully not much of the oil hits the coast, although that's just a cosmetic preference of mine, neglecting the underwater damage that could greatly affect anglers and who knows what else. This is the second time that such a spill has occurred in the Gulf, and the response was unprepared to say the least. With hundreds of oil rigs in the Gulf, actions need to be taken to ensure that future rig catastrophes don't end in the same way. I think that the government must step in--I should say increase their involvement--and participate in this mitigation process, to ensure that property is protected and whole regions of this country are not affected. For the same reasons, I think the government should continue to monitor nuclear, chemical, or any other endeavor that presents a high risk to property, regions, and the whole country itself.
Of course, like I said, I'm still contemplating this, as I have been since the beginning of the spill. I'm still reading all the new ideas that pop-up on this thread.
-
A strict adherence to an objective standard of risk is a meaningless phrase, unless such a standard is common knowledge or you mention it. It isn't common knowledge how you would determine what the risk of each human action is, objectively, so please share. I'd love a way to measure the "risk" of all my actions.
I'm not going to speak for the Ben Archer, but I don't see how that phrase is meaningless. Risk can be found objectively, and it can be upheld objectively as well. If someone wants to have an operation of constant burning of brush and trash in the midst of a neighborhood, the risks involved can be realized quite easily. When the dew point, humidity, temperature, and wind come together, a ban on all burning in the affected area is in store--a strict adherence to an objective standard of the risk present. When a nuclear power plant is trying to get approval, or is already in operation, risk is measured by known facts and data, hypothesis on such data, and historical events; then there is an attempt to mitigate that risk by objective methods.
-
What this Bill is attempting is to pander to nationalist sentiment, and magically remove rights by stripping someone of their citizenship. It puts the magical rights wand into the hands of he people who already tightly control the citizenship wand. But some of us know that the source of rights is not the consent of the government.
Pandering was the primary motivation that came to mind for the proposition of this law. However, there could be some benefits of allowing the State Department to make the "administrative determination" of whether someone will retain citizenship or not. They have an intelligence organization and are linked to just about all others. A State Dept. ruling could be less public and political, as well as quicker. That said, I still think it's pandering, and I will until I hear some arguments by Lieberman in support of the law. Either way, my support for such things has dwindled quite substantially since the few years after 9/11. I don't think the people can elect anyone capable of fighting a proper war against our enemies, nor do I trust anyone to properly target the enemy in the country. Hopefully, no one will take these statements as subversion, so I can keep my citizenship.
-
Previously, in Arizona, when the police made "legal contact" with a person, did they ask for identification, etc...? If they did, what happened to those who couldn't provide it? I lived in Arizona once, near the border, by Sierra Vista, and I don't remember the police being hampered when it came to asking people for identification. If it is true, that prior to the law just passed in Arizona, police could already ask for identification during stops, arrests, etc., and could transfer illegals to immigration control, then what is the purpose the new law?
-
The one thing that nobody has addressed yet is why BP is drilling here to begin with. Are there easier places to extract oil? Can oil companies overcome the regulatory barriers to drill there? Does drilling in such places involve less risk? I ask because I don't know for sure, but I suspect that's the case. Offshore drilling seems to be easier to get a bureaucrat to sign off on - the farther away the better.
Actually, it looks like this was close to being addressed already:
It depends on where you are at (which state). There are a lot of oil rigs drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Most are west of the Florida panhandle. When I lived in Florida, drilling off the coast of Florida was always debated, and I don't even think it was possible for new rigs to be built. Gov. Crist recently said he will not support drilling for oil off the coast, after popular support for drilling had been pushed back due to the recent oil spill. So, in certain cases, drilling offshore can be very hard to get approved.
-
More importantly, the assumption made by Russk and Seeker is that money can return the damaged party to the original state before the initiation of force. As we talked about the Exxon Valdez spill, it is clear from all the studies in that case the Prince William Sound has not returned to its previous state, despite the cleanup efforts. So in cases where the damages are not reversible, or at least for not many years, does the government have an interest in mitigating risky behavior that have the potential for catastrophic consequences?
I never made that assumption. The environment may never be returned to its original state; however, that doesn't make compensation for damages illegitimate. If you are severely injured in some way, by some action, the compensation received can be legitimate even though you may never return to your original state. The question of mitigating catastrophic oil spills was what I had asked previously. Some responses touched on the issue, but I still think that risk mitigation for probable, catastrophic events looks like a rational policy. Before, I used and built upon an example that someone else provided, about burning debris in one's yard, etc... However, a more widely known and understood example would be the regulations imposed on the nuclear energy industry.
-
Maybe not grounds for building codes in particular, but maybe a requirement to exercise proper care with your candle or to not light it at all if you're a butterfingers. Going with your hypothetical, there is a known possibility ("could") that it will damage your neighbors property if proper care isn't exercised. Risky behavior is threatening behavior if undertaken with conscious, hence deliberate, recklessness.
At this point I am for more oversight, but I won't go as far as saying BP behavior, though conscious and deliberate, was reckless--if that is even what you are saying. BP did have supposed methods of preventing the spills, and I don't think there is really a case for negligence here. However, on the other hand, large oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, through off shore rig accidents, is not unheard of. The Ixtoc I rig explosion, that I just recently read about, a rig with similar fail-safes, caused the biggest oil spill in the history of the world, and it happened in the Gulf. It seems like some sort of mitigation system would be in place to deal with such a thing, 31 years after the incident; something other than small oil booms that seem more geared towards lakes, instead of oceans with waves, should have been at the ready. I don't think there's any doubt, however, that there will be more preparedness for the next event.
-
The problem is that the fact of driving a car, trimming a tree, having a fire or drilling for oil is not initiation of force per se in the way that an actual threat is. It is proper for the government to prohibit threats (period, without any qualifications), and not proper for the government to prohibit dangerous acts. To what extent should the government prohibit a person's performance of dangerous acts without them having the ability to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions?
I've not even come close to making my mind up about this issue, but as of right now I lean towards having the safety of oil drilling in the Gulf increased and reviewed on a regular basis. To an extent, I think the government already does this with the energy sector, specifically nuclear energy. Additionally, while the drilling for oil in the Gulf is not an initiation of force, I consider the potential for oil spill to be a real threat to the property owners that line the coast; and really I should change my terminology because I don't consider an accident to be an initiation of force, although it can turn in to one.
Maybe this issue is more about scale than anything, like a rational position on pollution. For example, while a factory is indeed releasing a certain level of pollutant into the air or water way, and tainting property in some manner, there is no claim that should be allowed unless the scale of the pollution becomes significantly higher. Likewise, threat involved with someone burning brush, a few times a year for lawn care, cannot be equated to the hypothetical threat of some business that burned the brush, at the same spot, on a regular basis. In one case, the individual will still be held responsible, but there is significantly less threat; however, the business or regular burning has an very high threat and is more like to lead to the neighborhood being burnt to the ground. Of course, sometimes, the burning of brush is illegal due to local burn bans. That recently occurred here last week when there had been no rain, the dew point was below 25, and the wind was blowing 20+ mph.
-
I lived most of my life on the Gulf coast and always go back to Fl once a year. While this accident could turn into even more of an unfortunate and sad situation, the need for energy, for the most part, trumps all concerns for the type of damage that is about to occur. Just as in the Alaskan spill, the oil company will be held accountable. Of course, given that the Gulf coast isn't Alaska, this spill will probably cost more to clean up even if less oil is leaked.
To me a more interesting question presents itself: should oil companies be allowed to drill if unable to cover the cost of a major accident or catastrophe? While I don't think that this event will turn into a catastrophe and BP will be able to stop the leak, what if they couldn't cover to cost of the damages to property? A company that isn't able to come close to covering those costs shouldn't be able to drill in the Gulf. That leaves only major oil companies, like BP, to be given the possibility--which maybe the case, I don't know. Additionally, I would say that lifting the "moratorium" on drilling in the Gulf is essential in getting accidents cleaned up with minimal government involvement (money). If the oil companies aren't making any money, they won't have money for cleanup.
What ever happens in this case, one thing is clear: the ability for oil companies to mitigate the damage of spills in the Gulf must reviewed. While there is no catastrophe yet, the response by BP was extremely underwhelming. Skimmers and fires will not cut it. Some sort of mitigation infrastructure must be established and enforced. If I were an oil executive or entrepreneur, I would set up a co-op with others in the industry to create this clean-up organization.
-
Would such a proposal even get off the ground in Iceland? What is the outlook there of the people on issues of capitalism and corporations, or kickbacks/benefits for corporations. I'm guessing that the people are probably thoroughly dismayed and pissed off at the situation, and just like in America, blame free enterprise and the corporations for the mess. Are the people choosing to stay in Iceland freedom loving people, or will we see more statism in that country due to their failures?
-
From what I have found out Hitchens is a recovering Trotskyist, he admits to no longer be a socialist but still a Marxist! He comes across as a man of great intelligence but having not found a solid foundation philosophical foundation he wonders as if lost.
I read the book probably more than a year ago. That dynamic was one of the more interesting parts of it. He identified that the communist trotskyist thing had a lot of similarities to religion and god concepts.
-
I think that ignoring clothing – to the extent that you still pay attention about whether or not it’s in good shape and clean, though – is absolutely a sign of low self-esteem.
I have the same opinion. I've speculated on numerous occasions that people who don't try to look their best are kind of defeated people. I have the same opinion when it comes to personal hygiene. Interestingly, though I've never thought much about it until now, the clothing one wears can affect the opinions of others concerning one's personal hygiene. In the same light, spot judgments are made upon first encounter impressions, whether that impression is towards character, organization, or hygiene. That should be reason enough to pay attention to personal appearance and clothing.
-
There isn't. He's free to do it.
Maybe I've learned this from too much television
, but I thought a doctor can lose his right to practice if he doesn't perform his work indiscriminately, due to some oath taken. -
Republicans (or anti-Obamacare Democrats) would, however, have to take 2/3rds of both chambers to override the veto, and that's not even being talked about as a possible outcome of the election. (It may not even be metaphysically possible in the Senate given that only a third of the seats are up.) So assuming the Republicans take both houses of Congress, they may not even *try* to repeal Obamacare, knowing that he will simply veto it. (OTOH, it's good tactics to force the president to veto a popular bill; the blame can be laid entirely at his feet.)
The most optimistic realistic possibility is a repeal in 2013 if Obama is not re-elected. This of course assumes that the Republicans even find a decent candidate to field against him; at this point their track record suggests that they will look for the worst possible candidate and run him because it is that person's "turn" (which is how both Bob Dole ('96) and McCain ('08) were nominated.) I personally don't see Obama being defeated unless he really screws up.
But by 2013 many of the more immediate provisions of the bill will already have been in force and among them is banning the refusal to cover pre-existing conditions, which is a *hugely* popular part of the bill, and also one of the most harmful parts of it. I don't see that being repealed, once it has become part of our system.
So I don't see this thing going away. Ever.
I agree, a repeal is highly unlikely. For starters, the chairman of the GOP said they would not repeal "the whole thing." That's because, as you said, much of the bill is extremely popular. If they are unwilling to target the most damaging parts of the bill, all I see is political maneuvering to win elections. You do open up an interesting point though, of which I haven't seen on the forum before, about a GOP controlled congress making President Obama veto some repeal bill.
Because of politics, I don't think that will happen either, but it is possible. If the GOP is able to turn their populist movement into a near route and win control of congress, then I think they will be fine with sitting on their hands. While they will definitely try to keep the President on the hot seat by attacking his agenda in the media, using their free market doublespeak, they won't challenge him directly on certain issues like health care because they will be afraid of the potential negative consequences for the next presidential election.
-
I'm guessing they are trying to prevent even more injuries to the players, by not prolonging the regular season games.
Not a bad call at all in that light. Let them save it all for the post season. I still prefer to have it for the regular season though
-
Yeah, it's too early to begin a thread for this year, but there are some developments:
2) New overtime rules for the playoffs:
It's never too early for such discussion. Then again, the only news I watch on television is ESPN.
I myself like the new overtime rules. They wanted to try them because they're afraid that a typical OT sudden death victory will happen in the Super Bowl. However, I think that if it's good enough for the post season, then it should be good enough for the regular season. In fact, if anything, they should have tested the new rule this year, in the regular season, and then applied it in full next year, if it is to their Viking... I mean, liking...
-
Video: Bush wipes his hand on Clinton’s shirt after shaking hands with Haitian residents.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/24/bush-clinton-wipe/
"The FDA will meet with its Medical Devices Advisory Panel Thursday to review the classification of tanning beds. If the FDA decides to reclassify indoor tanning beds as class II devices with restrictions, it could mean that minors could be prevented from indoor tanning and that a registry could be required to monitor use."
http://digg.com/health/Keeping_Teens_Out_of_Tanning_Beds
http://digg.com/politics/Marijuana_Legaliz...s_for_CA_Ballot
I just went to a link provided on the page above, which took me to a site for the Skin Cancer Foundation. They have a a "Body Mapping," recording method for tracking the instance and size of moles. Such a thing would take me hours to fill out and leave me no room for notes. I guess they better hurry and pass Marijuana reform so I can take all of my cancer pills.
-
Its so strange that shortly after the government purchases GM, that SUDDENLY there is something wrong with the #1 car seller in America that also happens to be #1 above GM.....
Probably many are trying to tap into the anti-import crowd to gain votes and show just how American they truly are. Unfortunately, they fail to realize just how American, Toyota, et al are, and how they are putting jobs in jeopardy.
-
I plan on mainly dealing with this by laughing/drinking. It was inevitable it get passed. This is a hopeless struggle to stop America from becoming fascist. My main questions are what country I'm going to move to, when, and if I should at all. Sometimes I see the odd good sign, but rarely. I will be greatly surprised if any significant change in direction occurs in 2012. As they say in zombie movies, this entire country is "too far gone." I've long given up hope of redeeming the USA. Pointing out something like "A right does not come at someone else's expense!" is ignored usually. This is no longer the land of the free. Is Australia much better?
I'm not that cynical; nor am I moving anywhere. However, I always thought the same thing: it was inevitable and more is yet to come on the health front. They've been talking about universal health care fore years; the US rides in the intellectual wake of Europe who has such systems; and soon real universal health care will be demanded by the public--President Obama wasn't elected by some mystery.
Health care has been socialized for a long time, increasing significantly since the 1960's. Republicans have long since given their half-assed stamp of approval to this socialization, culminating in their current support for Medicare and Medicaid, and fascist insurance regulations that mandate who gets covered with "preexisting conditions." Lets also not forget the type of health care system envisioned by Mitt Romney, a GOP front-runner for the next presidential election. Seeing the GOP Chairman on the news recently, saying the party will not push to reject the whole bill in the future, and who only looked to be interested in continuing to whip up a stupid populist campaign doesn't give me hope for a return to the less socialized health care system of a few days ago.
Additionally, so long as the country's path continues on the track it's on, health care could only get more socialized. If we use the European model for unemployment and carry 10% unemployment regularly, the new poor, the lower middle class will be all for health care.
When a significant amount of the population begins to re-understand the concept of rights, then I'll start becoming startled when some form of socialism gets passed into federal law.
-
Do you not see a difference?
Car insurance is not mandatory, you only have to carry it to the extent that you drive. Even then you have choices to carry only liabilty or you can choose a larger package.
There is no opt out in the HCR, essentially it is a tax on being alive. And you have no options as to what is in your package, the govt is mandating that as well. Do you also not feel imposed upon that (depending on your income) you may be paying far more for the same service?
Or that the rights of many physicians are being violated by this?
Yes, I see a difference in scope. My point was that I'm not going to let some form of socialism keep me down, or let it occupy anymore of my thought than it deserves.
-
There is a great deal of time spent on here discussing what it means to live a proper existence.
I am wondering if anyone here cares to share what, if anything, you plan to do about the latest government intrusion into individuals' lives and why you believe your choice to be either consistant or inconsistant with the philosophy you espouse.
This is not a loaded question. I have some ideas about how I intend to deal with this but none yet so fully thought through and formed as to share at this moment.
edited for typo
I will continue to live my life as happily as possible, while only attempting to tackle issues of political importance only to the extent that it doesn't negatively affect my life. When it comes to measures of the new health law, I will accept any measure that is forced upon me and any "benefit" that is available to me that adds some value to my life; just as I will continue to buy mandatory car insurance, drive on government roads, and attend and use other government institutions--no one is more deserving or qualified than I to receive these benefits, and I no more deserving than anyone else.
-
To many, if not most people, those consequences don't look all that bad. Because of that, I have a hard time believing that they are going to be repealed any time soon, or by any republican dominated government in the future. It's a little hard to scare people about socialized medicine when there has been a constant and dramatic increase in government involvement in the sector since the 1960's. A recent article I just read stated it clearly enough: by 2012 medicare would have already covered half of the health industry.
Additionally, I don't perceive the populist uproar concerning this issue will last much longer. This is just speculation, but I think many have already lost steam--because they never had proper motivation to begin with. I asked a wild old lady I know, who was vehemently against the health law, if she thought things were going to be as bad as she said, now that the bill has passed. For whatever reason, she was very willing to capitulate and act like the whole thing wasn't a big deal to begin with. But, of course, she's elderly, so I wasn't willing to go in to the details of why it is, and always will be, an issue with great consequence. She has her medicare still, so I'm sure it doesn't matter much to her anyway.
November Surprise?
in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Posted
Or maybe they, the democrats, suspect that their opponents, like Rand Paul, will be totally unelectable on the national level.