Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?
From: Brent on 10 May 2010 01:25
On 2010-05-10, Bernd Felsche <berfel(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 2010-05-09, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> there are problems with regulation, no disagreement here but we know
>>> from bitter experience - as John points out - that if you don't
>>> regulate that companies will NOT do the right thing if in doing so it
>>> affects their bottom line -
>
>>Companies have a reason to please their customers in a free market.
>>Government on the other hand does not. Government doesn't have
>>customers, it has subjects. What are you going to do if you get bad
>>service from government?
>
> Government doesn't have subjects if it's government for the people.

That isn't the USA.

> Government serves the people in a democracy.

A democracy means that 51% vote to steal from 49%. The reality is that
democracy is more or less a sham where people vote within controlled
bounds. Those controlled bounds make sure that the ruling class remains
the ruling class.

> The rulers of a democracy are the free people. They have the final say
> as to who they most trust to be in government; to do the job of
> government for the people.

What happens is that sociopaths rise to the top with an element of people
voting themselves money from the treasury.

> If your "democracy" fails that test, then it's a democracy in name
> only.

A democracy is two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

> It's a shame that politics have to come into it. Government should
> be "contractable" as is any other service, with contracts to provide
> deliverables and those undertaking the work being personally and
> corporately responsible for the delivery. If those tendering to
> provide services mis-represent, they can be held legally responsible
> and dealt with under criminal law.

Not so long government has a monopoly on legal violence.

From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 04:34
On May 9, 7:13 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 5/8/2010 6:20 PM, Larry G wrote:
>
> > If you took a poll of the public asking if air bags should be optional
> > extras instead of mandatory - I'm betting that the public would pretty
> > thoroughly not agree.
>
> But if you're shorter than 5' 3", then in order to drive the car, you
> have to sit relatively close to the steering wheel.  When the airbag
> deploys in that case, it can cause severe injury or kill the driver.
> The main reason behind this problem is that the federal government
> requires that airbags be able to protect an *unbelted* 50th percentile
> size male dummy in a frontal collision (see FMVSS 208).  This
> necessitates a higher force of deployment as well as deployment for
> relatively low collision speeds in order to comply with that mandate.
> Also, studies haven't shown a net benefit for airbags in terms of
> morbidity nor mortality.
>
> But, since the public in general doesn't realize this, they'd still
> favor mandatory airbags.  IMO, I would like them to be optional
> (especially if I know the person who will be driving the car is too
> short to sit far enough away from the wheel to keep from being injured
> by airbag deployment.

this is the "one size fits all" ...."effect" of regulation... but I'm
not sure making them option is a better solution.
From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 04:41
On May 9, 8:47 pm, necromancer
<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card(a)worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:13:02 -0400, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/8/2010 6:20 PM, Larry G wrote:
>
> >> If you took a poll of the public asking if air bags should be optional
> >> extras instead of mandatory - I'm betting that the public would pretty
> >> thoroughly not agree.
>
> >But if you're shorter than 5' 3", then in order to drive the car, you
> >have to sit relatively close to the steering wheel.  When the airbag
> >deploys in that case, it can cause severe injury or kill the driver.
> >The main reason behind this problem is that the federal government
> >requires that airbags be able to protect an *unbelted* 50th percentile
> >size male dummy in a frontal collision (see FMVSS 208).  This
> >necessitates a higher force of deployment as well as deployment for
> >relatively low collision speeds in order to comply with that mandate.
> >Also, studies haven't shown a net benefit for airbags in terms of
> >morbidity nor mortality.
>
> The simple solution to that problem is a kill switch on the dash that
> would let the driver choose to disable the airbag if he/she feels that
> height (or anyother factor) would make the airbag dangerous to them.  
>
> >But, since the public in general doesn't realize this, they'd still
> >favor mandatory airbags.  IMO, I would like them to be optional
> >(especially if I know the person who will be driving the car is too
> >short to sit far enough away from the wheel to keep from being injured
> >by airbag deployment.
>
> Agreed. Those who want the airbags should be able to purchase them if
> they want them. Me, even though I have driven airbag equipped cars for
> over 15 years, I've never been completely comfortable with the notion
> that there is a package of high explosives in my steering wheel with
> the brunt of the explosion aimed at my face.

I agree with the concern about the proximity of the "package" as well
as the various unintended scenarios that the air bags might deploy.
There is no question there are a variety of considerations with
respect to the wisdom of making them mandatory in all vehicles but the
overarching issue that relates directly back to the possible
government requirement of black boxes/event recorders is this: does
the public, in general, support the govt specifying safety features
and regulations or would the majority of the public be okay with the
govt getting out of that kind of regulation.

My view is that despite all the issues and disadvantages - that a
majority the public DOES want the govt involved in regulation.

From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 05:09
On May 9, 10:41 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-09, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 1:50 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> We are taught in government school that before government regulation
> >> companies could sprew at will. This is false. Companies were sued and
> >> the courts and government, influenced by those companies adopted a
> >> system of proving harm. That is the companies could spew at will and the
> >> victims had to prove harm. This was a huge benefit to the companies and
> >> they continued to spew at will. Government regulation came to satisify
> >> people when there was a big enough outcry. However, that regulation is
> >> even better for the big players because they can have the standards set
> >> such that they can afford it but their smaller competition can't.
> >> Government basically bettered the previously political based system but
> >> didn't cure the fundamental problem with it. Free market and property
> >> rights never got tried.
>
> > " We are taught in government school that before government
> > regulation
> > companies could sprew at will. This is false. Companies were sued and
> > the courts and government, "
>
> > Government?  sued by the Govt? Do you mean the same govt that cannot
> > regulate correctly?
>
> Why are you cutting up my words when they are above?
>
> > tell me about the companies that were sued by citizens that dumped
> > kepone in the James river or killed thousands in Bopal .. or the kids
> > who were deformed by the toxins in Love Canal....
> > we've tried to unregulated route Brent - from the time when this
> > country was created. The vast, vast majority of regulation was IN
> > RESPONSE to abuses ... not just dreamed up....
>
> You don't get it do you. LOOK FURTHER BACK. Do you think that pollution
> cases just popped up in the late 1960s? They didn't. Ages before people
> knew the chemicals were harmful they didn't like neighboring companies
> spewing chemicals on them and dumping them in the water supply. The
> GOVERNMENT COURTS ruled that the victims had to prove harm. They ruled
> that the companies could spew at will UNTIL HARM WAS PROVEN. That means
> the government SIDED WITH THE POLLUTING COMPANIES that had influence.
>
> The reaction to huge public outcry decades later was to impose limits, a
> mere compromise that allows the favored companies who get government
> permission to spew only within limits but they ARE STILL ALLOWED TO DO
> IT, just less of it.
>
> A proper property rights decision a century or more ago wouldn't have
> permitted all the pollution. It would have made companies responsible not
> to allow their waste products to leave their property. But that's not
> what government did. It wasn't a lack of regulation, it was a lack of
> property rights for us ordinary people who don't purchase lobbiests and
> congressmen and judges and all sorts of others in the government.
>
> The old times were not unregulated, they were regulated in a different
> way. Companies got spew unlimited amounts of waste materials on their
> neighbors, into the air, and into the water and the neighbors had to
> just deal with it. That was the regulation.
>
> Do you think that just because it was 1910 that people who owned the
> property next to a clock face paint maker wouldn't complain about the run
> off? Of course they did and the government told them to go pound sand
> instead of doing their job to defend property rights.
>
> By the 1970s it simply became impossible for government to tell the
> people to pound sand anymore so we got the current compromise system
> since that quieted most of the people.

I don't think you have a clue what government is - and what the govt
role is - as defined in our Constitution.

your property rights end where they meet mine and govt is my
protection against you.
From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 05:29
On May 9, 7:28 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> The driver in the left lane cannot actually block the road without
> implicit or explicit cooperation from the driver beside him.  If you end
> up getting cut off by someone going around a LLB not too far ahead of
> you, then it's really your fault for letting yourself get into a
> position where it's possible for that to happen.
>
> When I'm driving in the right lane and I see someone start to pass me, I
> give them 15 to 20 seconds to complete their passing maneuver.  If they
> can't pass me in that time period, I increase my speed by 10 to 15 mph
> for the next 15 to 20 seconds and then resume my original speed.
>
> I do this because I find it unacceptable for someone to be beside me for
> longer than necessary (since it reduces my options to avoid potential
> hazards).  One incidental benefit is that the other driver cannot
> actually become a LLB because I don't let him (so if someone even faster
> comes up from behind, they have no trouble getting past us).

we have a very similar mindset on this. I will NOT run in the left
lane next to someone - no matter the speed - I will either speed up
and pass them or I will drop back and pull in behind them.

I purposely drive so as to NEVER be the cause of a line of traffic in
the left lane waiting for me to get around - but I am (as I am sure
you are) held hostage to this over and over and yes... if you are in
the left lane stranded then you will have folks pass you on the right
- and depending on how crazy/stupid/dumb/etc they are ..they will
attempt to use your safety buffer...

People have a responsibility to NOT cause bottlenecks and to NOT be
part and parcel of a unsafe dynamic .. to COLLABORATIVELY .. SHARE the
space rather than drive as if they are not responsible for shared
negligence also.

I am probably similar to you in some respects - I consider close
proximity to other traffic not a good thing in part because there are
folks driving who either have no clue how to really operate their
vehicle in close proximity formations or they think they do but they
are prone to mishaps from bad judgment and behavior...

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?