voting
 

Saturday before last I took the 12 year old to the courthouse for early voting.

I voted for people and propositions I think, over the long haul, will reduce the size, scope, power, and intrusiveness of government and/or against people and propositions I think, over the long haul, would expand the size, scope, power, and intrusiveness of government.

Pretty much the opposite of most you, I'm guessin'.

Don't kid yourself, we have all kinds of people here.

Hey, I'm only goin' by what I see posted here, the bulk of which seem to support 'expanded size, scope, power, and intrusiveness'.

-----

Haven't dug into any of it yet, but it seems Congress is now deadlocked (again), and the Republicans did slightly better than the Democrats on the state level. Couple that with House Dems self-hobbling as they (continue to) try to 'get Trump' and we've got a largely impotent federal gov and mostly business as usual state by state.

Works for me.

An impotent federal government is much much better than the one we have had for the last two years. I love political gridlock in DC.

Don't you hate it when the government interferes?

Damned straight.
 

"I love political gridlock in DC."

"Don't you hate it when the government interferes?

We know the power of the internet was all but banned from the public until laws made access possible.

Some laws restrict free markets. Others make free markets possible. A free market cannot exist without regulation. DSL (the first broadband) was kept from this nation for almost 15 years - until regulation finally made it publically available.

Unfortunately that is too complicated for extremists who only see the world in 'black and white' - as ordered to believe by talk show hosts. All regulation is bad? Only to extremists. Reality is always found in details. Not in blanket religious propaganda promoted by talk show hosts.

"All regulation is bad?"
 

Not all, just anything beyond 'mind your your own business and keep your hands to yourself'.

Most regulation can be phrased that way, but there's disagreement on the definitions of terms.

"there's disagreement on the definitions of terms"
 

No, not definition, 'scope'.

To me, 'my business' means 'my business'. To a buttinsky, 'my business' means 'my business, Henry's business, your business, his business, her business, etc.'.

Regulations aren't per person.

"Regulations aren't per person."
 

Regulations are crafted by people.

People like me skew toward the minimal (my biz as 'my' biz); buttinskys skew toward the maximum ('your biz 'is' my biz)

"Regulations aren't per person."
 

But they damn well affect us individually.

No surprise (since I've said it over and over) I skew toward minimal regs, toward maximum individual autonomy. So: a deadlocked gov is, to me, a most excellent thing. If it's at war with itself, it's probably gonna leave me be (and won't, for the length of time it wars with itself, be foistin' up new regs [and mebbe won't be doin' a good job overseein' the old regs]).

You see it different (also no surprise).

Regulations cover a type of business. If you and Henry are doing the same type of business, the regulation should cover both of you. Otherwise, it's a bill of attainder.

Silly emphasis removed because those emotions are only relevant to children.

Purpose of a business is its product; serving its customers. Not to serve the enrichment of a business owner. American corporations that have been operating with that contempt and corrupt attitude are eventually confronted by bankruptcy. Then these corrupt people blame laws - not their attitude. Unfortunately, we all must suffer as such corporations (ie Enron) operate as a self serving entities only to enrich top management.

Enron employees even laughed as they enriched themselves on CA electricity markets at the expensive of grandmothers. Actual recordings played on the so many honest news sources. That attitude similar to what Henry Quick endorses.

Another example of how America is harmed by wackos who want all regulations removed - because some extremist talk show host has ordered them how to think.

What was needed for some markets? We know finance markets cannot be over regulated. We know the auto industry have earned the regulations that exist. And we know responsible businesses (ie Silicon Valley hardware companies) do not have massive regulations due to not being corrupt. Those businesses make better products - do not enrich themselves as the expense of all others.

Your business is to serve your customers - to advance America. Not to enrich yourself at the expense of all others as you want.

The only regulation (law, principle, etc) worth a damn is...

Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else).

Anything else is overkill and nitpicky (which is the sphere of the buttinsky).

Now, do we have new ground to cover here, or are we just goin' round and round?

If it's the former then let's have it; if it's the latter, then I'm done.

There are many private regulations. My workplace just went through ISO 27001 certification, which proves that we enforce a standard of practices for information security. It's a harder process than, say, food safety processes that restaurants go by for their system of government inspection.

Often, there is a call for government regulation when private regulations have failed... and vice versa.

When I say 'my business', in context, I'm talkin' about my life, my affairs, not strictly my 'profit-makin' enterprise'.

As for 'my profit-makin' enterprise', I already covered that with you, tw: you were wrong then and you're wrong now.

Which explains why you need flame-throwers. How dare they make laws that restrict that right to bear arms. Henry quirk has the right to do anything he wants.

"Henry quirk has the right to do anything he wants."
 

Pretty much, yeah (just like you and him and her).

You're the one who looped back. If you don't want to cover new ground, don't try to put it on me.


How you define your business and how others define their business will conflict, whether in the scope of profit-making enterprises or not. There is no platonic ideal of "my business". Regulation provides the common framework for resolving those conflicts. If you don't like the regulation, you can work to change it.

The flame-thrower reference was to your post about burning people to death to sterilize the ground they walked on. Minding your own business and keeping your hands to yourself?

"How you define your business and how others define their business will conflict"
 

Yeah, and that's been wrung dry across several threads too.

As for me loopin' back: cuz we ain't coverin' new ground...not me, you, tw, or anyone.

"Well, if you don't wanna [insert verb] then why are you here?"

Damned good question.

#

"The flame-thrower reference was to your post about burning people to death to sterilize the ground they walked on."

Well, at least you're not a creep.

You've never actually answered it, unless you're referring to Golgotha, where the answer was to rustle up a posse.
I mean, the root of the "joke" was that immigrants are so disgusting and diseased that merely shooting them isn't sufficient; the ground they touched needs to be cleansed , right? I didn't miss the "humor"; I don't recognize it as such. Especially in this thread, in the context of asserting your right to do as you please.

"You've never actually answered it"

Yes, I did. Several times.

As I say: I support the 'night watchman' model, meaning sensible, minimal, courts, law enforcement, and military.

#

"I didn't miss the "humor"; I don't recognize it as such."

Okay. Humor is subjective.

That answers nothing. Sensible and minimal mean different things to everyone. Law enforcement and the courts are the mechanisms by which laws and regulations are enforced.


But you've never answered how your ideal sensible minimal government or lack thereof handles two entities whose views of what is "their business" are in conflict, if the only regulation is "Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else)."

"you've never answered how your ideal sensible minimal government or lack thereof handles two entities whose views of what is "their business" are in conflict, if the only regulation is "Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else)."

Yeah, I have (in one way or another), but here's the short form:

Joe gets robbed (robbin' someone is 'bout as basic an example of somebody not minding his own business or keepin' his hands to himself as you can get]).

Joe contacts the cops who investigate. If the cops find sufficient evidence to finger Stan, they arrest him.

The court reviews the evidence and if it concurs with the cops: San is tried.

If convicted, Stan goes to jail; if acquitted Stan goes free.

Really, you needed me to spell this out for you?

Same applies if you're talkin' about rape, murder, trespassin', or any any other circumstance where somebody doesn't mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Now where it might get a little fuzzy (for you) is when it comes to contracts and the like.

For that we got to cover this...

Extrapolated out from 'mind your own biz and keep your mitts to yourself' is:

'Self and property are sacred'.

'Self-defense and common defense are a justification for violence.'

'A contract is a contract.'

The first two are self-explanatory, the third, not so much.

Here goes: contracts can only be arrived at when all parties understand and agree to the terms. If there is a violation of this (lying about terms; failure to hold to terms, successful coercion to accept terms) then, in a real sense, someone has not minded there own business or kept their hands to themselves cuz by way of their lies, failures, or coercion they have monkeyed around with another's property (which is friggin' sacred).

So: cops , courts, trial, etc.

Satisfied?

What if there's no contract, and two entities still disagree about what is "their business"?

gimme a concrete example
 

.

Can you not conceive of a situation where two people could claim to be minding their own business, and still come into conflict? Whether one or both of them are making the claim honestly? Or do you just want to find some flaw with whatever example I come up with, and dismiss the general concept?



But anyway, here: Your uphill neighbor dumping toxic waste on his side of your property line.

"Your uphill neighbor dumping toxic waste on his side of your property line."

Shit, i thought you were tryin'.

If the waste isn't physically impingin' on me and mine, then he ain't messin' with me and I got no call to do diddly.

If the waste is makin' me and mine sick, or damagin' my property, well that's a horse of another color.

Try harder.

As conceiving a circumstance: you're the one askin' questions; the burden of conception is on you, not me.

#

"you just want to find some flaw with whatever example I come up with, and dismiss the general concept"

Yep, just like you wanna find flaws in my notions so you can dismiss 'em.

Let's not play games here, HM. We both know what you're up to.

You could have gotten sick for any number of reasons. He's just minding his own business, dumping on his own property.
If your notions rely on everyone agreeing on what "their own business" is, I've found the flaw already.

Also, do you have to wait until you get sick before you can demand the poisoning stop?

"You could have gotten sick for any number of reasons. He's just minding his own business, dumping on his own property."

That's what the court is for: to arbitrate between the irreconcilable and to determine guilt and compensation.

#

"If your notions rely on everyone agreeing on what "their own business" is, I've found the flaw already."

Are you stupid?

I used to not think so.

If I was suggestin' a 'happy time utopia' why would i say there'd be courts, cops, and soldiers? Hell, the very first example I gave was 'robbery' (clearly Stan had a different view of what was his to mind than Joe who takes him to task for it).

You're just tired and not tryin', or you're stupid.

I'm gonna go with the first (bein' the generous soul I am).

Arbitrate based on what? The cop's or the judge's feelings on what people's own business is?

"Also, do you have to wait until you get sick before you can demand the poisoning stop?"

Obviously, if I can't prove he's harming me, mine, or my property, I need to mind my own goddamned business.

If I think he is, and I can't get him to cool it, I call the cops and the investigation begins (along with a temporary cease & desist order till shit is sorted out).

"Arbitrate based on what?"
 

The evidence showing the dumping is hurtin me and mine, or that dumpin' is not hurtin' me and mine.

If he's dumpin' X and X is found on my property, in my blood, and if X makes living things sick...you see? You get it?

How is "harm" defined? Especially to property? Lower perceived value? Death of plants? If you keep bees, and he coats his property in insecticide, does that harm you?

"How is "harm" defined? Especially to property? Lower perceived value? Death of plants? If you keep bees, and he coats his property in insecticide, does that harm you?"

if my bees die and the investigation shows it was cuz of his poison then, yeah, that harms 'me' cuz he's deprived me of my property.

So a claim of 'harm' has to be demonstrable, be physical...obviously.

I'm almost done here (cuz you're wastin' my time) Make your next post worth my while or I'm out.

I'm out anyway...got better things to do...here's a g'night present...
 

Libertarian Theory (pretty damn close to my view)

This approach assumes that individuals take precedence over government. They inherently possess certain rights which the government should preserve and promote. This view assumes that human beings are capable of choice and development on their own without the help of government. Government should merely provide the institutions and mechanisms which will enable individuals to exercise their rights and pursue their private interests. Individuals are more important than the political community, and their rights and interests supersede those of the community. Libertarians see government as necessary because the clash of individual interests creates conflict. This requires institutions which can mediate these differences. The ideal government as envisioned by libertarians would be one in which general, impersonal laws and disinterested judges provide the peace and security under which each person can pursue private interests. Thus, the libertarian has a notion of justice that is purely procedural in nature. A procedural view of justice sees the political system as legitimate as long as it applies fair rules and procedures equally to all persons. Persons using these procedures to obtain vastly different results is not seen as being unjust. For example, a college admissions system may be based on merit. High school seniors will be admitted to college if they achieve a certain grade point average and adequate scores on college admissions tests. Those who do not meet the standards are not admitted. Though this system differentiates between people, it is procedurally just because it applies what are believed to be appropriate standards equally to all persons.

Communitarian Theory (here's where most of you pinkos live)

This perspective emphasizes the positive role that government plays in the lives of its people. This view asserts that individuals are not completely independent, but rather, have an inherent need for association with their fellows in the political community. Whereas the individualist-libertarian approach assumes that people can choose and develop on their own, the communitarian approach contends that people need the community and its values to nurture their development and enable them to make proper choices. Under this view, democratic government exists not only to recognize and protect individual rights and to satisfy personal interests, but also to bring individuals together into a political community to solve public problems. Politics is not a necessary evil to be limited in scope and function. Thus, communitarians recognize that the “public interest” creates responsibilities that may override the individual’s rights. Whenever a conflict occurs between individual rights and the public interest, the communitarian resolves the conflict on the side of the public interest. Thus, the political majority may sometimes need to impose certain values on individuals who find themselves in the minority. Communitarians take a substantive view of justice. Whereas the libertarian is satisfied with fair procedures as a measure of justice, the communitarian is more likely to look at the fairness of the results obtained. This view contends that vast inequalities among individuals are potentially damaging to society as a whole and supports the use of government power to achieve greater justice. In college admission systems for example, communitarian theory supports affirmative action on behalf of minorities to redress institutional inequalities. Thus a college may give admissions preference to minority group members in order to increase their numbers in higher education and obtain a just result for all elements in society, even though such action may discriminate against individuals who are not minorities.

Aren't your bees trespassing?

His bees can trespass. Because he has the right to do anything he wants. His neighbor's bees cannot because he now uses laws to protect himself from any neighbor who exercised those same freedoms.

A double standard found in extremist rhetoric. He need not be responsible. His neighbor must.

"Aren't your bees trespassing?"
 

They might be. In the same way I don't want my neighbor's dog shittin' on my lawn, my neighbor might not want my bees flittin' through his airspace.

If he complains, and has merit in his complaint, I'm obliged to curb my bees.

#

tw,

Quoting Glinda: "fuck you".

If you look at it another way, most regulation is just agreeing on the complaint/merit beforehand.

Indeed. That was what I was trying to get at originally. And while it may be "beforehand" for future potential disputes, it was usually in direct response to past disputes.

Plus, I can't stop thinking about this:

In terms of "get off my back and let me be", private regulation is usually MORE onerous than government regulation. It can be, because it doesn't have to stop and worry about rights. It just boldly goes ahead.

Like the MPAA movie ratings system (PG, R, etc) - not a product of government - private regulation just says outright whether a 12-year-old or 16-year-old can watch a movie, without considering rights at all.

At times it can be wonderfully beneficial and work better than government - see UL - but damn, a private auditor can fuck you way harder than a government regulator, and charges you for it!

Yeah, there are definitely times when private regulation works beautifully but if I'm going to choose between getting poisoned and seeking redress and government banning use of the toxin preemptively, I probably look to government. I'm not sure there is a simply applied concept for teasing out individual cases where private is more useful. We have to case by case this which we do when Presidents stop enforcement of regulations and people do or do not get pissed. Humans are involved so it's complicated.

Reflecting on this, I think about gated communities and parking, paint, and flag rules which can get pretty petty and personal.

When it comes to interstate, federal is the only solution, although the feds have made some questionable claims whether a situation is interstate commerce or not.

Gated and HOAs are the Devils doing. http://cellar.org/2016/reddevil.gif

"If you look at it another way, most regulation is just agreeing on the complaint/merit beforehand."

Based on *one-size-fits-all precedent.

Nah, that doesn't suck at all, Toad.

#

"Indeed. That was what I was trying to get at originally."

No it wasn't, HM. You were just applyin' a dull razor to my notions: that's it, that's all, g'night Gracie.

#

Me, not seein' how "get off my back and let me be" connects or leads to or is related to 'private regulation'. Conflatin' & besmirchin': that's tw's game, Toad.

#

"private regulation"

Nuthin' wrong with private regulations (like how 'you' run your household, for example) as long as private doesn't trump public (which, in the minimal 'night watchman' affair I propose, is **minimal but encompassing).

#

"gated communities"

If dumbasses wanna live in 'em, that's on them. Leave folks to their self-selected hells, I say

#

"I'm not sure there is a simply applied concept for teasing out individual cases..."

Of course there is, Griff.

#

"When it comes to interstate (commerce) federal is the only solution"

Of course not, Bruce.







*largely arrived at through the machinations of shysters (well-paid parasites)


**for latecomers, the memory-challenged, and the plain-ass retarded:

'Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else).

...out from which extends:

'Self and property are sacred.'

'Self-defense and common defense are a justification for violence.'

'A contract is a contract.'

Never tried to go into an R-rated movie when you were 16?

"Never tried to go into an R-rated movie when you were 16?"
 

I saw my very first porno ('Alice in Wonderland' with Kristine DeBell [what a piece of ass she was {mebbe still is}]) in the Joy Theater in Rayne, Louisiana. My buddy Bart (a perv before hs time) found out the flick was comin' to town. Bein' an aficionado of all things Blue, Bart made his plans, enlisted me, and we went, we saw, we were blown away.

As I recall: it was advertised as an R movie, but it wasn't R, no sir, it wasn't R at all.

Anywho: there's the age of minority and there's the age of marjority and never the twain shall meet ('cept at midnight leadin' into the 18th birthday). Simply: kids -- bein' kids -- don't get the full measure of autonomy adults do.

This means I get to order mine around right up to 12:01am (as his 18th begins). All his future, adolescent demands for 'freedom' mean nuthin' to me (cuz, me, I'm a [loving] bastid).

No, the full measure of autonomy comes to a body with age, not fully realized from birth, meaning: I got no problem with kids gettin' the short end of the stick.

#

HM,

Nice try (at a save) but, nope, no soup for you.

Could you order him to go alone to an R-rated movie, if that's what you wished to do?

nah, I'd take him with me...why should he have all the fun?
 

.

This prohibition doesn't bother you, to the point where you minimize it for the purposes of our discussion.

But that was just one example. These kinds of private prohibitions/regulations are all around us. This is water.

Employers are really restrictive to employees -- specifying what to wear, what to say, how many minutes late you can possibly be, what punishments will be doled out, etc. etc.

On a scale, all these restrictions affect the average person way more than anything the government ever does to them, don't you think? On a scale, on average.

It's like, how can you be considered "free" if you have a boss you report to for half your waking hours?

The rules are part of the contract you make with the employer.

"you minimize it"
 

You're inflating it.

#

"all these restrictions affect the average person way more than anything the government ever does"

The big difference: if you don't like restrictions levied by an employer, you can quit and that employer can't tell you shit, can't do jack ('cept fill the position with some other jerk). Try that trick with 'government'.

Age restrictions on movies: can't grt worked up about those either. They're 'kids'...they'll grow into their autonomy.

#

"It's like, how can you be considered "free" if you have a boss you report to for half your waking hours?"

Then don't work for that bosss, if it grinds your gears. Work for someone else, work for yourself, go on the dole, starve. Ain't no one gonna stop you.

Me: I self-employ. My 'masters' are my bills and my biology, not a 'boss'. Clients sometimes get 'bossy', but I kill that shit before it starts in the work contract.

Anyway: yeah, there are all manner of 'restrictions' a body has to contend with, and a goodly chunk of 'em are volitional on our part.

I have a similar trick I do with government.

One of the more nasty restrictions of the government is, if you own and/or ingest a particular naturally-growing plant, the government will put you in a cage.

Yet despite this being the case, me and several of my friends have owned and ingested the plant, one dude for four decades, and none of them has ever been put in a cage. None of them is even the slightest bit concerned about this possibility.

It turns out that this is part of how the law works. Although law itself is often bizarre, the actual application of it is much more practical, and that is built in, in many ways.

If you get away with it, it is "legal" for you, in a weird practical sense.

If the government "big brother" orders you not to avoid hiring someone strictly based upon them being gay, as a society we weigh whether the importance of you being compelled as such outweighs the gay individual being restricted by an even more onerous "private regulation" i.e. your prejudice. The greater Freedom ™ is achieved by a government regulation overturning a "private" regulation.

This is the basis and moral concept of regulatory frameworks that uphold our unalienable rights of life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Without a kindergarten teacher on the playground, bullies will and DO take control of everything, INCLUDING everyone else's ability to have Freedom ™. This is America 101.