"You have again invented a fear that does not exist."

As have you and all your commie friends at CNN, MSNBC, HLN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and on and on.

I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the lot of you if you all just admitted what you want.

Joe or Stan or Nick commits a crime, but should I be punished?

Sam rapes multiples of women, children, and even men, but I should be forced to eat saltpeter?

Louis drives his Ford Focus through a crowd, injuring and killing a whack of folks, but I should be denied my Focus, or submit to have a governor installed so I can't go faster than ten miles an hour?

Nick kills a buncha teens with a gun, but I should be hobbled?

You buncha silly bastids... :angry:

'nuff said
 

Even perfect drivers need a license and insurance, and cars must meet safety standards.

*Only reason for licensing is so a buck can slide into the public coffers.

*Only reason for insurance (mandatory) is so a buck can slde into the provider's bank account.

*Only reason for gov-mandated safety standards (instead of market-mandated standards) is that pesky buck again.

But, it's apples and oranges: there is no group lookin' to 'de-car' folks.









*there's another reason: plain, old-fashioned, control...makin' it apples and apples after all.

And to share the risk.

Then there's that little thing where you are making sure a person can drive before they get on the road. It doesn't come naturally, and insurance charts are very clear that new drivers suck, for the most part.

You know the reasons. It would be redundant to list them when everyone already knows them.
I'm certainly happy that people who do not qualify, or do not comply, with the regulation of cars are de-carred. You don't need to find a "group lookin' to" do something that is routinely done already.

But if you need to have such a group, I'm sure you could find some ecological group advocating the elimination of cars.

Their existence wouldn't justify the elimination of licenses, insurance, or safety standards on cars.

And the existence of groups that want to ban all guns doesn't justify the elimination of gun control laws.

gun control laws
 

Oh, I'm all for 'em...seriously...hell, ban guns completely! Can't be more control-y than that.

Won't make a damn bit of difference, but it'll make a whole whack of peopke 'feel better' and 'feel safe' (for a while, anyway).

So -- yeah -- control the hell out of those guns.

#

"risk"

If there was some way to eliminate it...hmmm.

There's a fellow -- Alastair Young -- who writes nano and meta- nano at 'The Eldraeverse'. One of his entries is about the major powers of his setting. One particular passage stands out...

Equality Concord
The Equality Concord and its dozen worlds share the dubious distinction of being the galaxy’s only genuinely functional, non-corrupt, decent-standard-of-living-enabled, etc., communist state.

(As opposed to genuinely non-functional communist states, like the former People’s State of Bantral.)

That’s because the Concord’s founders recognized the fundamental problem of Real True Communism requiring a whole set of instincts and drives and incentives and desires that are not commonly found among sophonts as nature made them. So they studied the gentle art of sophotechnology, and they built themselves some nice bionic implants to fix that problem, and create the perfect collectivist people for their perfect collectivist utopia. And then, and this is the important bit, they avoided the classic trap by applying the implants to themselves before applying them to anyone else.

It works. It may not be the most innovative of regimes, or the wealthiest, or up there on whatever other metric you choose to apply, but it does work, and self-perpetuates quite nicely.

Pity about that whole “free will” thing, but you can’t make an omelette, right?

You first.

Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance. To "eliminate" risk would remove the need for insurance.

But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.

This type person justifies assault weapons. We all need protection from such people who are so easily manipulated by Joseph McCarthy and other enemies of America. We might as well include the State Department and US Army in that commie list since that is what such logic *proved*.

Too many adults are still children. These are brown shirts so easily manipulated using soundbyte reasoning, fictional fears, and other emotions.

He demonstrates why assault weapons in the hands of civilians are so dangerous. And why killing increases with more such weapons. Thank you henry quick for making obvious the actual threat.

This is fun.

“Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance.”

Yeah, that’s one interpretation.

#

“To "eliminate" risk would remove the need for insurance.”

Implants, baby.

#

“But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.”

I’m thinkin’ you have a lower tolerance for risk than me.

##

“This type person justifies assault weapons”

Nope. I advocate for self-direction and -responsibility. You’d rob folks of that just to ‘feel safe’.

#

“enemies of America”

Me? Quite the opposite. I want a ‘free’ America where elected folks are seen as employees, where individuals can take on risk (reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences), and where where the majority understands that the pursuit of ‘safety’ is an exercise in diminishing returns.

You, you’re the enemy, not of America but of the individual. You’d see us all outfitted with one of Young’s fictional implants if you could.

Admit it, you big communitarian.

#

“Too many adults are still children”

Agreed. Such folks will gladly trade off their (and others) real autonomy for the ghost whispers of *‘safety’. Folks like you, tw.









*’course, that not really what it’s about... :neutral:

No, it's the actual context.

If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance.

If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess.